HaTe

Server-side option for airdrop time would be nice, at the very least. I can see that working out, as it can be adjusted to find the appropriate balance.

I'm torn with this one. I think that the rocket launcher does too much damage for how little it costs, relatively. But, it's one of the very few anti-air weapons that nod is able to possess (and GDI without a WF). I really think that if the rocket launcher is to be nerfed (which it should), something else needs to be buffed to be better anti-air. Renegade had these be the ramjets. I'm not opposed to buffing the ramjets to do 75% damage from the current 45% they do per clip to apaches/orcas. Basically, the rocket launcher needs a nerf, but only if another weapon is buffed in a way to deal with anti-air better.

Fair enough. That's just the first I've heard of this solution for the shotgun. I think error might agree with you as well though. If we could get more opinions on this, that'd be great. Well all things balance concerned need to be taken into account. From professional players to casual players who do not play much, we need to acknowledge and attempt to represent them all.

I too wish that they were shrunk. They seem to be made with 50-64 players in mind (all but a few, at least).

You think that buffing the acceleration would fix the shotgun being voted as the #1 most OP gun in the game right now, though? The one's waiting around corners are OP too, in my opinion, and editing the acceleration would do little to fix that. Again, I'm just trying reiterate what other people are saying on the matter. Having every single person on the same page is never going to happen, so being democratical here is important.

Yes, but with this proposed system in place; that would be their primary role. If they purchase a sidearm, they cannot directly individually kill a building, and so they need to be either repairing or defending. You can say the same statement for any character purchased, especially since any of them can purchase sidearms right now. I'm talking about them being able to defend already planted c4s. By that point it's already too late 90% of the time, and an alert then wouldn't do much. Defending these is 10 times easier with a sidearm. Not to mention that the path to getting into the base is made easier for them too with a sidearm, and calling them out at that point doesn't do a whole lot. Which directly supports the need to nerf them. If I don't solo kill a building per hour of play with a tech/hotty with sidearms, I get surprised. That's how easy it is to do even solo. Did you not just say that a technician/hotwire with a purchased sidearm is the "jack of all trades." How is that diverse if one unit is clearly stronger than the rest at a huge majority of functions in the game? Long ago, I had proposed a system that would probably seem completely radical now. Having 2 separate characters that split up the technician/hotwire roles. This would solve many things in the game, and especially the fact that these characters are the most used by a significant amount. If you're interested, I could dig that up for you.

I think it should be established that there are VERY few developers left working on this game right now. With that in mind, reading through each balance thread whilst still working on the game is a hassle. There is not a set group of developers that read through these threads and decides where to go from there, and then another set of developers that work on it. There's pretty much one developer in charge of all of this. This is why we need to help out now more than ever. Edit: This has just recently changed, so expect to hear more about it coming up. The same principle still applies, but one thing in specific that I mentioned above is now not so true. We need to keep it simple. Walls of text or complicated solutions to even understand are not going to help the game progressively move forward (read Attainable in the SMART goals). That's why myself and several others are making it a priority to attempt to simply the balance process. Brotranquility, I completely respect and salute your willingness to help and knowledge on the matter. Quite frankly, though, your long posts that often don't quite establish a clear point may not be the right direction to take for balance purposes. Again, I more than appreciate your dedication to help, but if you could attempt to keep things simplified, it could help the process to run more smoothly. So far, my basic understanding of the discussion taking place is this: Buff the spread. Make it less random. Nerf the damage. With less spread, this would likely need to be significant. And then we have people wanting a range decrease, and people against that action. Am I correct in making this summary?

Subtracted 6 from the flechette and added 6 to the sidearms.

Yes but nerfing or getting rid of sprint isn't realistic for the game at this point. So the same affect can be given with nerfing the weapon. Sprinting backwards isn't really realistic either and would look goofy too. Is that what you were suggesting, or were you just making a point, error? Would you agree with the changes proposed so far (the ones I posted above)?

I agree with that post 100%. My ideal solution would also be 0 passive credits from a dead refinery. That's just because I love the competitiveness of that. But in Renegade, servers that utilized little passive income died off rather quickly for the most part. Servers that allowed an influx of credits seemed to do well and last the longest, generally. I think we need to balance the two, for competitive and casual gamers. People just quit if they can no longer make a difference, and they often feel that way when they can't purchase any advanced units because of their income being mostly halted. For the casual gamer, more credits are needed to be effective, because they aren't quite as efficient (I mean that respectfully, and it's true in any game really).

The infiltrator is the real problem. I don't really run into hotwires/techs that are defending or repairing and get annoyed with the fact that they have purchased a superior sidearm. I do, however, get annoyed when I get killed by an infiltrating hotwire/tech by a sidearm, knowing that they have the ability to blow up a structure at any given time. Getting rid of one of their timed c4s would counter that. Personally, I feel the same way about engineers. If they are going to purchase an advanced sidearm, then they should also sacrifice their timed c4. The (by far) most common characters that purchase sidearms are the hotwire/technician/engineer, because the automatic pistol isn't too effective for infiltration purposes. That's the way it is supposed to be though; they have the ability to do massive damage to (or completely destroy) an entire enemy building, and so their fighting weapon should be weak. Being able to replace that with some extra credits makes them 100% stronger. You're absolutely right when you say that people defending or repairing won't really be affected by this, and I think that's how it should be. It's the huge advantage this gives to infiltrating hotwires and technicians that I see as OP. Not to mention that if 2 of these are traveling together, they can do massive damage to enemies and be able to repair each other right back to full health. If that's going to be the case, then they should only be able to kill one building together. Alternatively, having one with a sidearm and one with just the pistol, they would be able to kill 2 buildings just barely, with enough coordination. The more I post and think about this idea, the more I find that I like it, personally.

Let's try to come up with a solution to better balance airdrops, officially. I personally really liked error's idea, and a variant of it as well. His idea basically said that each time you purchase a vehicle, it increases the next vehicle cost by 50%. So a medium tank purchased for $1600 originally would then cost $2400 the next purchase. If another medium tank is purchased after that, it would cost $3600. It seems logical, and would force the lower tier vehicles to be purchased more than the upper tier ones, especially the later on in the game (and the more vehicles that have been killed). Alternatively, a variant would be: Have vehicles increase in purchase time by 50% after each purchase. A person purchases a vehicle at 5 minutes, then the next vehicle cannot be bought until 7.5 minutes after that. The following vehicle cannot be purchased until 11.25 minutes after that. They both have the same general affect, but are just done in two completely different ways. Keep in mind that passive credits are going to be nerfed as well (and earned credits probably buffed, too). Thoughts?

Would you agree with this then too, gaysha? Or would you change something in this? Just trying to figure out the best solution with everyone's input involved. So far this is what I have, but if anyone feels differently, I'd love to hear them out. @error; I'm just not sure that that is realistic in the RTS FPS genre. It's not a bad thought, but I believe that if you're good enough to earn over that credit amount, then you deserve it. At least by earned credits. Having it capped at like 5000 for passive credits I can see possibly working, but I just don't think that the majority would like that decision over just nerfing the current passive credit system.

Agreed with gaysha, but I think it's still pretty obvious that they need a nerf. The overall thoughts on the balance changes thread are: Buff the spread (reduce it). Nerf the damage. Nerf the range. If we can all at least agree on that being the best course to take, we can start talking actual number figures to be able to measure the change.

Updated running tally (included gaysha's twice, as dien00b felt the exact same). Keep 'em coming guys. Shotgun has just surpassed the officer (chaingun) as the most prevalent requested balance change.

That'd be the absolute minimum nerf I'd like to see with them though. My ideal solution is still the one I posted first.

I get a tech/hotwire for sneaking more than anything else, and if I'm sneaking I'll grab a carbine or flechette every time I can. I think the vet system will help balance this heavily, but until then I think that they should at least see a price increase if they are to remain as powerful as they are now.

Updated running tally

Raise infantry and vehicle damage/kill credits/points earned by 50%. Have a dead refinery give 1 credit tick every 2 seconds. Decrease points/credits for damaging structures by 25% and decrease points/credits for repairing structures by 50%. Have the silo give 1 credit tick every 2 seconds.

Awesome release. Great job to the tmx team and the developers for being able to reproduce and then fix this.

Is there anyone who can accurately explain how the shotgun works as is? Name Warhead Body Dmg Neck Dmg Head Dmg Range ROF SC Shotgun---3---------15--------45---------75---------15--------1---8 This was it in Renegade. You don't need to know what warhead means. Body, neck, and head damage are all self-explanatory. Range = 15. To put that into perspective, the chemsprayer and flamethrower had a range of 30. RoF = 1 means that it could fire one shot per second. SC means spray count, meaning that it shot 8 bullets per shot. There's also a spray-angle, but that would likely just confuse people without something to relate it to.

I'm a business major and we learn a lot about setting goals. There's a very good acronym that exists that I believe could be highly beneficial to balance discussions as well. For those of you who are familiar with it, the acronym is SMART. Specific - The suggestion should not be broad, such as "gun needs to be better." Instead, establish what about the gun you believe should be improved. Measurable - There should be a way to measure the buff or nerf that you are suggesting. Saying "nerf the gun's damage" is not good enough, because there is no measurement. Nerf the gun's damage to the head by 50% would be measurable. Attainable - Is this possible for the developers to do? Something as complex as "Make the buildings turn green when someone is inside, but only after 15 minutes and only if they still have a timed c4 and if they plan to kill the building" is not attainable. Though we as gamers may not fully understand coding for this game, we should be able to recognize what suggestions are going to likely be the easiest to accomplish. Realistic - Does it fit into the game well into the C&C universe in an RTS FPS and is it realistic enough to make logical sense? "Have a giant ant-eater come and eat all of the tiberium and then have a space cowboy ride him to the moon" would be an example of unrealistic. Time-bound - Is this balance suggestion going to take forever to make, or will it be something that can be done in several hours of work? Remember, we're talking balance. So while a vet system would help with the balance, the timeline of that is far into the future, whereas editing the RoF of a weapon isn't nearly as timely.

Nice edit bananas. I've updated the running tally. For #8, I put it as the laser rifle. Would you like a separate category for the SBH (and what specifically about it?), or is that what you were going for? Edit: just realized you said buff. Could you specify what about the SBH you'd like buffed?

Anyway, would you like your rankings added to the list, then?

https://stonemole.files.wordpress.com/2 ... ront_1.jpg manor