The 'Double Buff' - Your opinions wanted...

[Mystic~]

This is a post to discuss the balancing of the offensive and defensive commander powers and how they can be used. 

Is it fair to allow a team to apply two command powers one straight after the other? i.e. Defence bonus + Attack bonus or Attack bonus + Another attack bonus - is this too over powered and does there realistically need to be some sort of cool down timer like there is on airstrikes? Does there need to be a limit on how many players or tanks the buffed power can accommodate? i.e. up to 10 players in a grouped attack rather than say the whole team or a large majority of the team. 

I wanted to discuss this due to the relative ease or possible unfairness of destroying an entire base externally with infantry, usually Mendoza or Mobius or a building internally by way of many people running in with something like Gunners - it only takes one person to clear mine defences with a shield activated and an MCT becomes a very vulnerable target. Many games seem to be won or lost by these methods now and is there any realistic counter to this tactic... it's especially apparent on maps like Field/Field-X and Islands. 

What are your thoughts?

Thanks

[roweboat]

I think it is a valid strategy, because it can take quite a bit of time and planning (and luck) to be able to gather that much CP for an effective attack.

Plus high risk because most likely you're using all the CP you have (assuming CP limit is regular 3000).

 

Now the validity of the Defensive buff itself, well that's another discussion. a well organized infantry rush is basically invincible when the buff is active. Might as well have the mario super star theme playing while it's active LOL

[Luhrian]

I think in extreme campy situations it is good to be able to do this double buff.

[Reivax]

i think it's a good idea
when i'm Nod on Field, and GDI is camping our base entrance with mammoths, deff buff+off buff is our only hope to try to push them
and they can destroy us only by deff buff+ off buff or double off buff
add a cooldown could only make this kind of game more long than now - and they are already long enough  

[yosh56]

Identical buffs don't stack. So 2 offensive buffs only give the benefit of one. They just reset the timer. 

[Mystic~]

Quote

Identical buffs don't stack. So 2 offensive buffs only give the benefit of one. They just reset the timer. 

Yeah, I know. But you can still apply a buff twice in a row, which was the point I was making. There was much more to my post than this.

So many games now seem to be won or lost on the basis of powers and who can be the first to successfully rush with the powers. Inf are protected with a shield going to their target, the target is often destroyed (sometimes not) based on the offensive bonus, and then as soon as it runs out it can immediately be switched on again. This isn't always done, but there are times where this happens and I'm wondering if it's too strong, tactically lazy or even 'spammy'... being in a good spot like the bunker on X-Mountain or the plateau on Walls and being able to buff offensively twice with Gunners or Mendoza is super effective. Confronting a GDI tank column that can protect itself whilst its getting in position and then switch immediately to offensive mode makes it almost unstoppable from the Nod point of view due to how much armour they have unless they can hold the field.

This was the point of discussing their use, but maybe it needs to be a poll... How about saying you can use x1 offensive and x1 defensive; but not x2 offensive in a row - too much? Or bring about a short cool down period between their use. It depends on cp of course, but some servers don't cap it at 3000.

It might also be nice to distribute use of powers between the team, something like squad leaders, so it doesn't always result in or depend upon one massive rush and following the commander, whom can also be sorting out other areas.

[roweboat]

Maybe have a cool down timer between buffs, say 1 minute between any single type of buff (so defensive and offensive can't be stacked or 2 offensive buffs can't be used very effectively together.)

[TheOlsenTwins]

23 hours ago, roweboat said:

Maybe have a cool down timer between buffs, say 1 minute between any single type of buff (so defensive and offensive can't be stacked or 2 offensive buffs can't be used very effectively together.)

Maybe also Cruise Missiles could be included into this cooldown. 2 successive Missiles on a GT are impossible to counter right now

[roweboat]

I agree.

 

Also I think maybe the logic with cruise vs GT and turret should be reworked. They are killed too easily by those missiles.

[Tytonium]

Hell yes it should be allowed and even implored!

It is the absolutely most powerful tactic in Renegade X to be able to pull off. It has only two downsides, and they are big ones, time and manpower.

It is the most powerful means to break stalemates in this game when all else fails, and can be used in both defensive and offensive positions, and both are a fair means to break a stalemate.

In a defensive position, the commander must sacrifice time in order to gather the cp to initiate this strategy, and time is usually against the defending team. Any little slip up can result in a building lost and a quick GG/BG on most matches. If however the commander of the losing teams decides to save cp while also managing to fight of the offending team, there is no one to blame but the offending team for doing a shit job at being... offensive. Then of course the commander of the losing team must find the right opportunity to use this strategy in an effective means. Rushing means less people being able to defend.

So if a team with a competent commander is able to fight off the enemy for a long enough time without the help of cp, while also managing to gather a good majority of the team for a rush without the defense collapsing, while ALSO being able to fight their way to the enemy base with the enemy controlling the map (usually the infantry path), and above all actually being able to get both buffs off in an effective way that actually manages to destroy a building, I would say they have absolutely earned it. Point being the offensive team should have done more, and they have no one to blame but themselves for being unable to defend and offend properly as a team, especially given the fact they were winning.

 

On the other side of the coin I also see it as being fair to use this strategy for the offensive team as a means of breaking a stalemate. Sometimes the defensive team will use scummy tactics to defend as a last resort (arty/mrls spamming tuns, bitch mines, c4 traps, T-posing snipers headglitching to show their dominance, etc...). So if an offensive team is able to maintain their offensive and lock an enemy team in base while also not using cp to help them, they deserve to use that cp in order to give them an overwhelming edge for a rush. Point being that the defensive team should have been able to break out while the offensive team was not using cp, and especially while the offensive team was gathering for a rush. The defending team have no one to blame for their defeat but themselves for their inability to push out.

 

I believe it is a completely fair tactic to use, and one that is filled with MAJOR downsides. If however it is pulled off successfully, it is because the enemy team and their commander did bad and were not defending/offending properly. At the end of the day both teams are able to use this tactic if they so choose, but it takes a bit of luck in relying on your enemy to be ineffective in battle, and that is what makes this strategy a sort of gambit in a way. It is up to the commander to decide whether or not the risk is worth it.

[Fffreak9999]

13 hours ago, TheOlsenTwins said:

Maybe also Cruise Missiles could be included into this cooldown. 2 successive Missiles on a GT are impossible to counter right now

If a team wants to use 800 CP per missile to attempt to kill a GT/Turret, then it should be perfectly fine.

Its the same as a team using an offensive buff to attack, but with the ability to be shot down, which would have no effect at all.

[Mystic~]

Quote

If a team wants to use 800 CP per missile to attempt to kill a GT/Turret, then it should be perfectly fine.

Isn't this the same argument as to why two or more players can't all call in 2-3 airstrikes on a guard tower at the same time? They're spending individual credits rather than team CP. Minor checks and balances like this are to prevent abuse of powers, whilst its their resource to choose how they use, 2 cruises one immediately after another might be too much.

Aside: does anyone else think a flare indicating point of a cruise missile strike is just too obvious? As in, there's a 50/50 chance you'll have just wasted 800cp on target that is most likely going to move out of the way... maybe a fine or subtle vertical laser appearing later (due to its guidance system) at the last 5 seconds or something... presently you may as well just paint a giant X on the ground, but obviously does not matter so much if target is a stationary structure.

 

I'm not advocating removing powers, just making it more fair and balanced... it just seems over kill to see 15-20 people all following one person and then having opportunity to apply a very powerful ability, not once, but often now twice in a row. I forget how stale matey games may have been in the past, but even a single use of a power should be enough to break an opposing team. I'm suggesting limiting the number of players that can be buffed at one time, the interval between being able to apply another power (double buff) and distributing powers so potentially more than a single group can use it and operate at the same time - this feels more relevant when the server cp limit is 5000 rather than 3000. I'd much more enjoy seeing two different groups of coordinated players between 5-10 each being able to use a power in a different place - say one infantry and one vehicle and we'd see much more spontaneous play and different strategies beyond the 'big inf tunnel rush', and may even see more use of tactical smoke/emp/cruise missiles. Compared to the past, there's also significantly less beacons being used now and this used to be one of the main ways of winning a game.

With things like this in place, the same rushes can still happen, but their potential is capped if you understand me, they are unlikely to be able to melt an entire base externally in one attack and there may still be a chance of countering it. I'm not a fan of tunnels or buildings being camped by tanks or vehicles at all, in fact I wish there was some sort of movement penalty for a vehicle that remained in the same general spot for too long camping an entrance to a building like the barracks or hand of nod on Lakeside or Islands.

What if there were at the very least a small wait of something like 5 seconds between uses after the point it runs out - small, but still significant

Other games would have user testers to find things like this and identify things that are too powerful in game play.

[yosh56]

If a rush stays alive for the 15 seconds a buff lasts, and has enough people still around for a second buff to even be worthwhile... what the absolute hell is the enemy team doing? 

Infantry being broken with buffs is honestly still more of a 64 player problem. Game was built and balanced around 40p... where these stupidly large infantry rushes would require basically giving up over half the team and actually being risky. 

[Madkill40]

On 1/14/2020 at 2:37 PM, Mystic~ said:

So many games now seem to be won or lost on the basis of powers and who can be the first to successfully rush with the powers.

Because without the powers its a stalemate and whoever and however many players leaves whichever team after 75 minutes of stalemating becomes the victor

[Mystic~]

Quote

Because without the powers its a stalemate and whoever and however many players leaves whichever team after 75 minutes of stalemating becomes the victor

I do remember somewhat what the game was like before magical powers were invented and the game still required strategy to win and the powers are not always guarantee of destroying a building even in a game of Under. But I have to say, did you even read my first post? I'm not advocating getting rid of them, I just think it's super lame that in certain circumstances you can apply two offensive powers twice in a row and that maybe they need refining for the game, but it's also tanks on a hill and not just massive infantry rushes.

 

Quote

Infantry being broken with buffs is honestly still more of a 64 player problem.

Well this is where my idea of capping number of effected units at around 10 units or players, perhaps enough for an average rush, or having two players on the field capable of accessing the commander menu and applying a powers independent of one another for split tactics. More people could still join the rush, but we might see less of a building being melted in 3 seconds by 20 Mendoza/Mobius etc.

[roweboat]

No doubt the ultimate super power is Teamwork and nothing will ever top that.

It's funny sometimes people surprised these days when rushes win without buffs. Hello =D

[isupreme]

 

Quote

 or having two players on the field capable of accessing the commander menu and applying a powers independent of one another for split tactics.

Divest all powers from the commander and give them to players.  <my usual stance.

~~~~~~~~

Or if Commanders had Captains ... they could share efforts.

Edited January 17, 2020 by isupreme

[Mystic~]

Quote

Divest all powers from the commander and give them to players.  <my usual stance.

I think we could have at least one extra player capable of accessing commander powers, I wouldn't want to give every player access as it would defeat the point of having leadership roles and decision makers. Kira talked about this before by way of a Captains mod, but never heard much more about it beyond the initial post, but maybe it could become something official to look into.

 

Quote

If a rush stays alive for the 15 seconds a buff lasts, and has enough people still around for a second buff to even be worthwhile... what the absolute hell is the enemy team doing? 

When an enemy has the hill and they can use two offensive bonuses one after another, there is not a lot an opposing team can do to stop this.

If this were any other game, it would be possible to use an attack power once and then it would go into a cool down period before it recharged and could be used again... maybe you might there after or before apply a defence power if it seemed beneficial, but we have a points system allowing anything to be used multiple times - instead of using a points system, what if we made it a recharge/time limited ability - people could then enjoy using more of the other abilities like cruise missiles, emps, smoke, radar scans without depleting cp and slowing down or jeopardising points that might be needed later for a first rush and risk of running out of points, everything just recharges as a separate ability with cool down period and doesn't cost anything beyond the risk of perhaps wasting it at the wrong moment. Maybe cp instead allows an ability to recharge quicker.

I'm basically thinking then you would be able to place a cruise missile and still be able to pull off some sort of team rush and not punish commanders for using more of things like emp strikes, smoke and scans.

[yosh56]

You can cruise and buff already.... You just have to do the same thing you have to do to buff twice in a row: get the CP for it.

Also people do use all the other powers in practice already. Some are just better at knowing when/how to use them than others.  

[TheOlsenTwins]

On 1/16/2020 at 8:47 AM, Fffreak9999 said:

If a team wants to use 800 CP per missile to attempt to kill a GT/Turret, then it should be perfectly fine.

Its the same as a team using an offensive buff to attack, but with the ability to be shot down, which would have no effect at all.

Yes it is ok, but right now, an SBH commander can kill GT without any possiblity to deny it. Even 2 hotties right beside it to repair it after the first hit are not enough.
Should be at least a cooldown long enough to give the other team time to repair it

[Mystic~]

Quote

You can cruise and buff already.... You just have to do the same thing you have to do to buff twice in a row: get the CP for it.

Also people do use all the other powers in practice already. Some are just better at knowing when/how to use them than others.  

Can you not see how much more intuitive and user game friendly it would be for each of the powers to function based on a recharge or cool down period? Would it not be great to have the freedom to think and feel safe that, well hell, I can use a smoke strike and it's not going to cut 400 (or however much cp it is) from the total pool when you're looking for that 1400 for the offensive, which is much more important and you don't have spend ages doing maths sums on the fly to work out what you can and can't use. All of the powers could then be used independently without prolonging how long you must sit waiting around for cp to replenish or going off just to q-spot for points.

I understand things like this take work and effort, programming and interface building, but that's a separate discussion.

 

Quote

Yes it is ok, but right now, an SBH commander can kill GT without any possiblity to deny it.

I once managed to destroy a GT with an SBH and airstrike only, not sure if that's the norm or not.

[Rups]

I understand that some people consider it a fair trade-off (power vs effort) since you have to gather a bunch of people for it, but in reality all the buff powers were was a direct buff to rush strats. Double buffing is pretty silly given how overwhelming it can get if you have enough people clumped together. If people would be given the ability to stack 2 offensive buffs, then that would literally be the only thing we'd see from then on. 

As with many other mechanics, commander buffs generally benefit the winning team more. 

Limiting buffs to only affect a limited amount of players would be a good idea though, or perhaps the cost of the buff should scale with the amount of players? (the latter obviously being much harder to implement). All it currently does is encourage big blobs of people rushing together.