#Idea to balance barracks destructions

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

modest tinsel
#

So as it stands the soviets get shafted pretty badly when they lose the barracks as they lose thier primary anti tank infantry: tesla trooper

The allies just lose thier support units and infiltration units.

My suggestion is this:

When allies lose thier barracks they lose access to deployable GGIs and have to rely on the LAW for anti tank duties from then on. It doesn't completely remove the ggi from being available but it does remove thier primary anti tank weapon.

It would put the ggi on par with the flak trooper as far as effectiveness goes. If this change were implemented the nerfed ggi would be able to have it's price decreased from 750 to 450 to match the flak trooper.

This also might allow the soviets to push thier armor advantage a bit more by taking out a key structure. Whereas currently the anti tank stopping power still exists and is just more expensive, which when you have a ton of creds isn't a big deal.

magic bolt
#

Though I disagree about removing GGI's deployable anti-air (what if both Bar and Air Force is down and a mass of Kirovs are en route?) I agree the barracks are demonstrably more valuable to Soviets than Allies. Note also that Soviets lose Desos, the ultimate counter to Seal/Tanya infiltrations, and that since advanced techs are always available (unlike vanilla Ren) Allies retain access to their most critical unit: the repair IFV.

#

That being said, I think it's a fallacy to assume that structures are 1:1 between both sides in terms of importance. In fact, I think a better equivalent to the Soviet Barracks would be the Allied Air Force, which is significantly more disastrous for the Allies to lose than if the Radar Tower is destroyed. Notice how both the Sov Bar and Allied AF are placed in similarly exposed positions in Little Big Lake

#

Once the air force is lost Soviets get a big leg up because they no longer need to worry about jets harassing their V3s and Rhinos and can spend less money on flak tracks/troopers and other units with AA capacity. Unfortunately, the Soviets are still forced to keep some AA units on the team because of Nighthawks, which is why I think their production should maybe be moved from the WF to AF.

modest tinsel
# magic bolt Though I disagree about removing GGI's deployable anti-air (what if both Bar and...

While you bring up some good points, if the bar and afc are both down... don't you kinda think a mass of kirovs sorta deserves to win at that point?

I'm not trying to say they are equal, but it seems to heavily favor the allies in a lost bar situation as thier primary anti tank unit is still there while the soviets have to use thier anti air unit as anti tank. Maybe the issue needs to be that the ggi gets a deployable anti air only weapon when the bar is down? But then communication of that to players might be difficult. I've just always thought the loss of barracks for the allies leave them with too many of thier strengths sort of like the loss of radar for soviets. Yeah you lose the map but you don't lose aircraft. I do think the nighthawk is fine staying as a WF unit as it gives some recourse against kirovs and twi-... siege choppers.

It's just in multiple games as and against an allied team with no bar that it feels like they didn't really lose footing for losing it. I rarely see spies being used, Tanya and seals are nuisances at best most of the time and the only "valuable" unit they seem to lose is the rocketeer. Which is still not missed much when you have ggis still.

#

I guess I just want the loss of a base building to be more meaningful. I do also think the soviets should have units tied to thier radar like the terror drone.

magic bolt
#

I agree with your sentiment, but IMO a major reason that the loss of Bar does not feel impactful is how the game is currently being played on public servers. The lack of communication and teamwork is one part of this equation that's already been discussed to death, but another thing I've noticed is how the current scoring system really punishes assaulting the enemy base and how that affects unit choice, especially for the Allies. You can bring a building down to 5% health in an impressive display of teamwork but in terms of points you'll end up in the red due to all the tanks you lost. It's generally not worth assaulting the enemy base unless your opponents are severely incompetent.

This is why Soviets tend to dominate right now, because they can pretty much sit in field all game and pick off Allied tanks one-by-one with their superior armor, sometimes throwing V3 rockets at base defenses for easy points when it's safe. Tesla Troopers and Desolators kind of suck at base infiltration but dominate on the field due to their strong anti-armor and anti-infantry capabilities and squish immunity. On the other hand, as the "specialist" faction, Allies are kind of at a disadvantage with how the scoring works. Many of their strategies revolve around coordinated surprise attacks on a single target, like prism tank rushes, black eagle strikes, Tanya+Seal Nighthawk C4 rushes etc., but when these attempts fail the Allies are punished inordinately in scoring after they've already wasted so many credits and time they could have spent plinking soviet tanks with howitzers for easy points.

Once scoring is normalized so base assault tactics aren't so heavily discouraged, you'll see much more of an impact of Allies losing Bar and WF since they'll be less afraid of doing sneaky Nod shit. I know you detest Marathon but I think the vanilla/X crowd tends to prefer it because you see more base destruction outside of a PUG environment. I think AOW could be fixed with trial and error

#

Okay that was a long-ass post but I have a couple more quick thoughts before I forget them:

  1. I don't agree that a team "deserves to lose" once they've lost a few structures. Takes a lot of coordination but I can envision awesome comebacks where the whole Allies switches to GGI, clears out a couple attacking Kirovs and then does a rocket rush on the Soviet base. Though if the Soviets really rush with Kirovs or Apocs (like coordinates 4-5 on a single target) I don't see how GGIs and a couple straggler IFVs from the reinforcement bay can out-DPS them; a team should never let their guard down if they're winning but they would always have a clear advantage once they've destroyed a few structures.
  2. IMO spies aren't chosen as often because the risk/reward ratio is way too high compared to the terrorist. Spies have to clear mines to get to a target, and the only viable one rn is the refinery (since nobody coordinates Allies can't take advantage of a Tesla or WF sap), so basically they'll just give AOW points to the enemy 4/5 times they try to infiltrate. Terrorist can easily make up the point deficit by tossing a terror device on the side of a building or blowing himself up to take out any dogs that attack. (maybe spies deserve their own discussion thread?)
  3. You're probably right about Nighthawk, because then losing AF would not only delete Allies' air superiority but also most of Seals/Tanya's utility, making them even rarer. I think it really just needs a higher damage taken from AA sources flak to quell peoples' complaints.
modest tinsel
paper python
#

Wouldnt really agree with removing deployable ggi when allied barrackss gets destroyed. Allies will lose alot of anti tank power. Soviet barracks getting destroyed early is pretty common nowadays with people doing GI rush yet soviets still win hard. Arguably allies losing barracks is already a death sentence to the allies. There are plenty of cases where soviets can live with war factory alone with v3 being too op right now. Push with apocs, clear inf with v3s, infect with TDs.

#

In little big lake id even argue that soviet barracks placement should be replaced with warfactory to make things fairer

red kindle
#

I think there's more to it. There are several factors at work here together:

  1. GGI being rather strong in AT especially compared to flak trooper.
  2. Soviet has no proper anti-infantry vehicle. V3 is strong but has a lot of limitation and I feel it's gonna be nerfed in the next version.
  3. Allied has one more production line to compensate for the loss of the barrack. They can still use harriers for AT and black hawks for anti-infantry, and both are arguably stronger compared to the Allied infantry in a face-to-face battle. Like what @magic bolt said, the Allied infantry are more focused on infiltration.
#

And that's why I think flak trooper need more buff, other than the AA buff in the last patch. More AT damage and a lower price will make him at least comparable to the GGI, but it only fixes the first issue.
Soviet is doing great in this version mostly because of the V3 barrage. I read your thread and I also agree it needs to be nerfed. But right now I think only the tesla troopers and Apocs work in the front line. And Apocs still struggle to fight a careful prism tank.

paper python
#

flak trooper is in a good place right now. ft inside v3 is enough to kill harriers before v3 gets yeeted

#

allied barracks is way stronger in than soviets rn but soviet wf is stronger than any

#

tbh the best thing to do is nerf v3, fix siege chopper as better anti inf

#

or give tesla tank splash

robust latch
#

You could fix the counter intuitiveness of the GGI losing the deploy ability by changing him out for the old rocket solider from APB

modest tinsel
magic bolt
# paper python or give tesla tank splash

IMO the splash on nearly every tank in AR is way too small which is why it can sometimes get annoying trying to kill infantry and even TeDs as tanks depending on latency/performance... except for the V3's splash range being enourmous, which is why it's so overplayed