Geoscape Balance - V21 Experimental 6

[StellarRat]

What I believe Gauddlike is referring to is there are no existing mechanisms for vehicles that could be tweaked. Something would have to be made out of whole cloth.

I don't think it would be too tough. Just add a flag to the vehicle object that's a repair timer and update when the geoscape is running. When it get to zero your vehicle is ready to go again. There wouldn't be a partially repaired state. Only "dead" or fully operational. They already have the update logic in there for aircraft it could process the vehicle objects too. Edited May 12, 2014 by StellarRat

[Max_Caine]

Hrm, you know, I think this is a matter of perception.

When you have the Charlie giving up 2 spaces for a vehicle is a big deal especially if that vehicle blows up in the first hail of shots that comes its way. That's two people which are invaluable in a Charlie. When you get to the Shrike you can have 10 people plus a vehicle, so giving up two spaces for a vehicle isn't so much a deal - 10 soliders and a vehicle is less striking than 6 soliders and a vehicle. When you get to a Valkyrie, 14 soliders and a vehicle isn't too much bother at all. However, the pattern is set in the early game - you don't give up space for a vehicle because you get more utility out of two soliders early-game than you do a vehicle, so when it's time to roll around to another dropship, the memory of the past dropship controlls the choices you make in the current dropship.

Perhaps it's less a matter of buffing all the vehicles and specifically buffing the Hunter perhaps in terms of armour, HP or both so it doesn't feel so vulnerable and therefore a liability rather than an asset.

[StellarRat]

Perhaps it's less a matter of buffing all the vehicles and specifically buffing the Hunter perhaps in terms of armour, HP or both so it doesn't feel so vulnerable and therefore a liability rather than an asset.

I'm going to disagree with you. My play style is to use the vehicles very carefully. It's rare for mine to get killed because I treat them just like soliders. I keep them in cover (always make sure I have enough TU to get behind something if an enemy is spotted.) The big problem for me, at least, is that I simply can't get enough shots off to equal two soldiers with rocket launchers or MG's. Two guys with rockets are going to have at least 10 shots on them, plus maybe another 4 to 10 rounds of additional ammo close by. That means they effectively have around 2x - 3x the firepower of a rocket Hunter. This is critical in terror and base missions (not so much in recoveries) where there are lots of enemies. The same also applies to troops carrying MG's. They have far more shots than any vehicle. Plus you're giving up experience gains. Right now the only thing a vehicle has to offer is better spotting range. I don't want the game to get distorted so that vehicles are the "preferred" weapon, but they do need some help right now. Buffing the HP or armor is only going to give you a weapon that might survive more often, but will be useless after a little while heavy combat. Giving them more ammo will make them useful during an entire battle if you can keep them alive.

[Chris]

Enemies have exactly the same hit chance against the vehicles as they do against your soldiers, so they're actually pretty damn tough already. I'm tempted to nerf their survivability if I give them more ammo. I've seen quite a few comments about the Scimitar being overpowered.

[StellarRat]

Enemies have exactly the same hit chance against the vehicles as they do against your soldiers, so they're actually pretty damn tough already. I'm tempted to nerf their survivability if I give them more ammo. I've seen quite a few comments about the Scimitar being overpowered.

Maybe you should increase the ammo in the next build and see what the players think. If they're OP move the HP down. My own thought was not more than a 50% increase ammo. The MG Hunter probably could be left alone although an accuracy buff would be good. It's pretty useless at anything but point blank range compared to an infantry MG. I think the armor should stay the same as thick armor is supposed to be what vehicles rely on. I would point out that it's possible to one shot most of them with a burst from a plasma rifle even with the current toughness. The bottom line might be how tough are they compared to two soldiers with Wolf or better on? That's probably 120 HP combined plus the armor. Edited May 12, 2014 by StellarRat

[legit1337]

Maybe you should increase the ammo in the next build and see what the players think. If they're OP move the HP down. My own thought was not more than a 50% increase ammo. The MG Hunter probably could be left alone although an accuracy buff would be good. It's pretty useless at anything but point blank range compared to an infantry MG. I think the armor should stay the same as thick armor is supposed to be what vehicles rely on. I would point out that it's possible to one shot most of them with a burst from a plasma rifle even with the current toughness. The bottom line might be how tough are they compared to two soldiers with Wolf or better on? That's probably 120 HP combined plus the armor.

I agree. Right now vehicles (the hunter is the worst offender) don't really justify their cost when I can take two rookies that have twice the survivability, twice the ammo, and be cheaper. They need an accuracy boost as well... I swear the dude shooting the MG on the hunter has parkinson's.

Edited May 12, 2014 by legit1337

[StellarRat]

i swear the dude shooting the mg on the hunter has parkinson's.

lol!

[Dranak]

An ammo buff seems like it would go a long ways towards making vehicles more useful.

[kottis]

Hm, has anyone in mind to give vehicles a free space in each dropship in general, so you can always have the full amoung of soldiers + a single vehicle? From my point of view, currently 2 soldiers are far more powerful especially in the early stage of the game. So there is really no reason too choose an vehicle. The idea is to make vehicles more mandantory and give them a permanent role in the game.

plus:

- much more player would use vehicles in general, so you add more variation to the game

- much more variation in vehicle equipment can be added (scout, tank, destroyer roles)

- research topics which update vehicles are far more interessting

negative:

- new balacing needed (depends one the overall vehicle power)

- the game gets more complicated in term of equiment options and research topics

- as mentioned in previous posts, what happend with destroyed vehicles?

Of cause this is nothing what can be done for the release version, its more something in the modding section.

[StellarRat]

Hm, has anyone in mind to give vehicles a free space in each dropship in general, so you can always have the full amoung of soldiers + a single vehicle? From my point of view, currently 2 soldiers are far more powerful especially in the early stage of the game. So there is really no reason too choose an vehicle. The idea is to make vehicles more mandantory and give them a permanent role in the game.

plus:

- much more player would use vehicles in general, so you add more variation to the game

- much more variation in vehicle equipment can be added (scout, tank, destroyer roles)

- research topics which update vehicles are far more interessting

negative:

- new balacing needed (depends one the overall vehicle power)

- the game gets more complicated in term of equiment options and research topics

- as mentioned in previous posts, what happend with destroyed vehicles?

Of cause this is nothing what can be done for the release version, its more something in the modding section.

Sounds like a good idea. Unfortunately, due to the time left until release I doubt anything like this is going to happen. I think tweaks to the XML are about all we can hope for. I'm hoping maybe they could be made recoverable too, but I doubt it will happen unless it's a very easy software update.

[Gauddlike]

The boardingspace variable in vehicles.xml determines how many soldiers a vehicle displaces on the dropship as far as I remember.

Could just change that to zero and see how it goes?

Should just be an xml tweak if that's the case.

Of course you may have to make other adjustments to make sure that the vehicle and soldiers will all physically fit in the dropship.

At least that will probably not be an issue for the Valkyrie or Chinook.

My personal preference would be to have that flag on the dropship instead.

A large Chinook with plenty of cargo space but limited passenger seating would allow you to take a vehicle without losing any soldiers while a Shrike might require a couple of soldiers be left behind in order to fit that vehicle in the passenger compartment.

*edit* At a glance it looks like you could have plenty of soldiers plus tank on each dropship, just going by the amount of deployment spaces.

Chinook - 9 plus tank.

Shrike - 15 plus tank.

Valkyrie - 24 plus tank, although 16 is still the maximum the UI can support.

Edited May 12, 2014 by Gauddlike

[StellarRat]

The boardingspace variable in vehicles.xml determines how many soldiers a vehicle displaces on the dropship as far as I remember.

Could just change that to zero and see how it goes?

Should just be an xml tweak if that's the case.

Of course you may have to make other adjustments to make sure that the vehicle and soldiers will all physically fit in the dropship.

At least that will probably not be an issue for the Valkyrie or Chinook.

My personal preference would be to have that flag on the dropship instead.

A large Chinook with plenty of cargo space but limited passenger seating would allow you to take a vehicle without losing any soldiers while a Shrike might require a couple of soldiers be left behind in order to fit that vehicle in the passenger compartment.

*edit* At a glance it looks like you could have plenty of soldiers plus tank on each dropship, just going by the amount of deployment spaces.

Chinook - 9 plus tank.

Shrike - 15 plus tank.

Valkyrie - 24 plus tank, although 16 is still the maximum the UI can support.

Well, hell, just change it to .1 and you can carry an entire armored division into battle!

"May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't."

- General George Patton Jr

Edited May 12, 2014 by StellarRat

[dpelectric]

To me the problem with vehicles is multi-faceted. As others have pointed out, they do not justify diverting scientific research when aircraft & weapon development is decidedly more crucial. They do not have enough ammo, enough speed, enough armor, enough anything. And most importantly of all, one tank can only cover roughly half the number of tiles that two soldiers laying down interlocking fields of fire can.

Going around a building? That vehicle can move around one corner. Two soldiers can move around both. Trying to defend a large open field? Tank can see far less tiles than two soldiers combined can. Trying to thoroughly search an area? Tank is going to take twice as long. Approaching an enemy in cover? Tank has half the chances to flank. And throughout all of these scenarios it is a bigger, juicier target for the aliens, easily destroyed (in my experience) and non-recoverable. The only way I would consider using vehicles now would be if you could take them as a straight-out addition to your team, without any reduction in squad size. They simply do not have the mobility, flexibility, and utility to match two skilled soldiers in the large majority of combat situations.

[StellarRat]

To me the problem with vehicles is multi-faceted. As others have pointed out, they do not justify diverting scientific research when aircraft & weapon development is decidedly more crucial. They do not have enough ammo, enough speed, enough armor, enough anything. And most importantly of all, one tank can only cover roughly half the number of tiles that two soldiers laying down interlocking fields of fire can.

Going around a building? That vehicle can move around one corner. Two soldiers can move around both. Trying to defend a large open field? Tank can see far less tiles than two soldiers combined can. Trying to thoroughly search an area? Tank is going to take twice as long. Approaching an enemy in cover? Tank has half the chances to flank. And throughout all of these scenarios it is a bigger, juicier target for the aliens, easily destroyed (in my experience) and non-recoverable. The only way I would consider using vehicles now would be if you could take them as a straight-out addition to your team, without any reduction in squad size. They simply do not have the mobility, flexibility, and utility to match two skilled soldiers in the large majority of combat situations.

I think you're selling them a little short. They're faster than most troops, have a big gun, and can take more damage. Probably the most crucial difference, though, is that they have greater sight range and can see the enemy before the enemy can see them most of time. That's a big deal, IMO, because it let's you plan your engagement from the beginning. I get the feeling that your play style is much different than mine because I find them quite useful right up until they run out of ammo (and that happens way too soon IMO.) Edited May 12, 2014 by StellarRat

[dpelectric]

I get the feeling that your play style is much different than mine because I find them quite useful right up until they run out of ammo (and that happens way too soon IMO.)

Yes, my play style is all about flanking and covering as many parts of a map from as many different angles as possible. True, if your tank spots an enemy first and can bring its firepower to bear, it has significant value. But if that enemy darts off into the FOW or behind impenetrable cover, your tank can then seek it out from only one path, while my two soldiers can come in from different angles. If the tank is then caught and destroyed by reaction fire, it's gone. If one of my soldiers is killed by the same reaction fire, I still have the other soldier to retaliate (and the "dead" soldier may even survive).

I realize I'm exaggerating for effect here, but I think my core belief that one tank cannot match the combat utility of two soldiers in most situations holds true. I'd be willing to bet a fair amount of money that if multiplayer was possible, a squad of 8 soldiers would defeat a squad of six soldiers and a tank more than 50% of the time.

Edited May 13, 2014 by dpelectric

[llunak]

I once, just for the fun of it, modified the game files to allow a transport to carry two vehicles, and then I sent two Hunters (and no soldiers) for a light scout mission. It was such a walk in a park that I actually found the mission pretty hillarious. So I too think you're underestimating the vehicles (and if multiplayer was possible, I'd accept your bet and rip appart your 8 soldiers ).

The only reason I don't use vehicles is that it decreases the already poor troop transport capacity.

[dpelectric]

The only reason I don't use vehicles is that it decreases the already poor troop transport capacity.

Which is the whole point. You don't use them. In favor of having a full squad of soldiers.

And a light scout mission is not an adequate test. I could prob coast through most light scout missions (at least before the most recent build) with my grandma swinging her purse, much less two tanks

Edited May 13, 2014 by dpelectric

[llunak]

Which is the whole point. You don't use them.

How is the fact that I find the transports poor the point of the vehicles being poor? Vehicles in the OG had exactly the same limitations you list, and I always carried one, only to have it run around the battlefield and seek aliens for soldiers to shoot, not doing anything else. I'd take one here too, if that didn't leave me with so few soldiers that they wouldn't be able to cover the map effectively.

I could prob coast through most light scout missions (at least before the most recent build) with my grandma swinging her purse

You should stop playing at Easy .

[dpelectric]

I'd take one here too, if that didn't leave me with so few soldiers that they wouldn't be able to cover the map effectively

Lol. You can't argue that one tank is better than two soldiers, and then in the next breath state you take all soldiers because they cover the map more effectively. You're arguing against your own logic.

And I don't play on Easy. I'm still on Infant. Though I plan to try Easy next

[legit1337]

You should stop playing at Easy .

dpelectric is right, I could do most light scout missions with 4 men and not really have it be that much of a challenge. I play on veteran btw.

I also happen to agree with his assessment of vehicles at the moment. The hunter especially needs to perform better in pretty much every area to justify taking it.

Edited May 13, 2014 by legit1337

[StellarRat]

They work pretty well for me as the lead element of my squad. I don't really use them independently of the soldiers. In fact, I often let them stay toward the back once something is spotted and use them for fire support. I will say the Hunter is a bit too UP, however, I think with more ammo and a more accurate MG it would be much better. Don't forget it can also carry the pulse laser.

[llunak]

Lol. You can't argue that one tank is better than two soldiers, and then in the next breath state you take all soldiers because they cover the map more effectively. You're arguing against your own logic.

Of course I can. If you have some work to do and you have 12 people to do the work, in many cases it'd be more effective to have just 10 workers and one boss to coordinate the work. But if you have 6 workers and one boss, then if those 6 people have trouble to handle all the tasks that need doing, it might be more effective to rather have 8 workers and no boss. A lone battleship may also be powerful but inflexible on its own, compared to a weaker fleet of more small ships. My logic is fine, I'm arguing against your logic that seems to assume that one vehicle should be exactly like two soldiers.

[Gauddlike]

Maybe I am in the minority but I don't believe the vehicles should out perform the two soldiers they replace in every single way.

Of course a single vehicle cannot be in two places at once to perform flanking manoeuvres on its own and will not be able to face in two different directions to cover the same view angle as two soldiers.

If those are some of the criteria the vehicle will have to meet or exceed in order to be useful then no wonder balancing them is difficult.

For me the vehicles currently out perform a single soldier which is fair due to their restrictions so I would suggest they should only displace that one soldier on the dropship.

That addresses the concerns that they are not as good as two soldiers but still means you have to decide which to take rather than making them a compulsory upgrade to the squad, which would be the case if they were an addition rather than a substitution.

The middle ground between replacing two soldiers and not replacing any.

What I am looking for is not just a list of problems people find with vehicles but also suggestions on how they could be addressed.

Maybe this should move to a specific vehicle balance thread though as it seems to be quite a big topic all on its own.

http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/showthread.php/9969-Vehicles-balance-and-usability-%28V22-7-HF2%29?p=110098#post110098

New thread on vehicle balance and usability, please add your thoughts there for now so this thread isn't swamped by the discussion, we can always feed back to here when we come up with great ideas.

Edited May 13, 2014 by Gauddlike