View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0007009 | Valley 1 | Balance Issue | Apr 6, 2012 6:45 am | Apr 17, 2012 4:36 pm | |
| Reporter | Toll | Assigned To | Chris_McElligottPark | ||
| Status | resolved | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Product Version | 0.923 | ||||
| Fixed in Version | 0.931 | ||||
| Summary | 0007009: Battlefield missions too easy | ||||
| Description | Started a new continent, and went into a battlefield mission. My friendly NPCs just plowed through it, and I didn't have to fire a single shot. Sure, this was before I had unlocked any other enemies, but judging by the speed of this mission (and by what I've seen in older worlds) I think the end result would be the same even with all unlocks done. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | For New Player Experience | ||||
| has duplicate | 0007093 | closed | Battleground difficulty is nonexistent |
|
|
Agreed, though it might be different with different scaling / at the highest tier. Maybe change the base you have to protect into a giant siege-bot that slowly continues onwards advancing on the enemy base? ...and at the same time altering the scale of friendly bots to enemy bots and such. |
|
|
I've been thinking; what would happen if the non-piercing rule was removed? Right now, it's mostly allies that clump up, so removing that rule would almost entirely be to the player's disadvantage. |
|
|
It would remove one of the two causes for allies clumping up (not being able to hit enemies behind other enemies). At the same time it would make the battlefield flare ability completely useless (forcing your allies to clump up would actually be a negative thing to do to your own side). And i think it would make the thing even easier, since now you'd only have to fire a few shots in the direction of a tower and its already down, rather than working your way through the enemies that constantly barge in front of it first. |
|
|
I don't think any of the allies actually have piercing attacks, though; that's player-only (as well as a few advanced enemies, such as the clockwork probe). So the last part is a non-issue in this case, where you don't actually need to shoot anything to win. And the flare would still have its uses. Only a few enemies have piercing attacks, so a group of allies is still better than individual ones, since they'd be able to take threats out far quicker. Although flaring to group them up and running into a group of four or five probes would likely have Fun results. |
|
|
Good point, i don't know if the allies have piercing attacks. However, doesn't the no-piercing rule also remove the effects of 'AoE' when hitting a target? When that is implemented again, it's going to have drastic effects on clumped up allies, and would make the flare a negative influence on the mission if used. Maybe they should change how it works in its entirety, change the allied weaponry into arcing projectile based, so that they cant fight enemies directly in front of them. |
|
|
I think the only counter to AoE was that the NPCs can't pass eachother in most cases (i.e. you can't have five small skelebots standing in the same place). Could easilly misremember that though, of course. And the "can't shoot things directly in front of them" might make for an interesting change. It'd mean fewer allies can shoot at the same target, and if the range is long enough, it would mean that enemies could find a safe spot right in front of the group of allies, forcing the player to kill it. That'd require more melee-enemies though. |
|
|
Actually, considering the NPC's stand real close to eachother anyhow (thanks to their 'advance onwards' pathing thing) i dont think there would be a real need for melee-enemies. |
|
|
There should be no way it's too easy now -- let us know if it turns too hard. Thanks! * In response to comments about the battlefield missions being incredibly too easy, we've now reduced your minion's health to 1/5th their former value. If this is too far in the other direction, please let us know. But those of us who have been through balancing of AI War with us know that we find the quickest way to perfect balance is to "bubble sort" with large changes that get progressively tighter on the ideal target. Starting with small incremental changes when something is already way off just makes the whole process take longer, because each change is harder to judge on its own. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 6, 2012 6:45 am | Toll | New Issue | |
| Apr 6, 2012 6:50 am | silverhound | Note Added: 0021838 | |
| Apr 6, 2012 6:53 am | silverhound | Note Edited: 0021838 | |
| Apr 6, 2012 6:57 am | Toll | Note Added: 0021839 | |
| Apr 6, 2012 7:04 am | silverhound | Note Added: 0021840 | |
| Apr 6, 2012 7:09 am | silverhound | Note Edited: 0021840 | |
| Apr 6, 2012 7:13 am | Toll | Note Added: 0021841 | |
| Apr 6, 2012 7:23 am | silverhound | Note Added: 0021842 | |
| Apr 6, 2012 7:41 am | Toll | Note Added: 0021844 | |
| Apr 6, 2012 8:13 am | silverhound | Note Added: 0021845 | |
| Apr 8, 2012 11:02 pm | tigersfan | Internal Weight | => Fix Before Major Release |
| Apr 8, 2012 11:02 pm | tigersfan | Assigned To | => Chris_McElligottPark |
| Apr 8, 2012 11:02 pm | tigersfan | Status | new => assigned |
| Apr 15, 2012 6:41 pm | Toll | Relationship added | has duplicate 0007093 |
| Apr 16, 2012 11:28 am | tigersfan | Internal Weight | Fix Before Major Release => For New Player Experience |
| Apr 17, 2012 4:36 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0022210 | |
| Apr 17, 2012 4:36 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | assigned => resolved |
| Apr 17, 2012 4:36 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Fixed in Version | => 0.931 |
| Apr 17, 2012 4:36 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Resolution | open => fixed |
| Apr 14, 2014 9:29 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Category | Gameplay - Balance Issue => Balance Issue |
