Outpost 2 Game Balancing

[dave_erald]

I may not be the best person to lead a project like this but we need to start somewhere if any of us want to entertain the idea of making OP2 a more balanced game in multiplayer, and possibly even more enjoyable to play in colony games and such.

Some ideas have already been suggested in other topics and more can be put forth here.

Sirbomber has experience in making tech trees and the like and I hope to gain some insight into that and anything else he chooses to glean. Second, I am willing to bet he and others (okay its a for sure) know what needs balancing and where, Plymouth has the early game advantage and carry it on thru the game when you consider how well a wall of EMP and ESG Tigers work (credit goes to many a frustrating games playing against G2)

Vagabond looks to be doing some great work when it comes to mission creating and map making. And lordpalandus looks to have some good insight into where Eden and Plymouth colonies should be differentiated from each other (this part comes back to Sirbombers comment on opening up the tech tree to be a more focused and distinct list between Eden and Plymouth)

Firstly, if we are to consider changing aspects of gameplay (weapon variants, tech trees, maps yada yada yada) we should find a common ground on identification to differentiate this new content from original content

Secondly, when it comes to map making I was hoping to set a guideline on base location and ore locations when playing or rather starting new Last One Standing maps, call it a starter list that allows all locations to be identical i.e. ore types amounts and locations be identical as well number of entrances to bases (reduce choke points that get us no where)

I suppose the point I am trying to get across here is we can work together to reduce some of these nuances in the gameplay of OP2, with the introduction of Nethelper and the ability to get back into gaming easier it only serves to help us to make life easier for us.

Any thoughts comments are welcome. I hope we can work together and maybe get some more gaming on the table.

[dave_erald]

...
As LP points out, Eden is at a disadvantage early game, due to Plymouth weapons being stronger.
This is a bit two-fold as Plymouth has access to stronger initial weapons + more diverse initial weapons. Effectively the combo is Micro + Sticky vs Lasers.

Sticky Foam is a pretty strong weapon early on because of its range, it's ability to damage buildings & immobilization of enemy vehicles. Effectively you can use it both for assaulting an enemy from a distance taking out base defenses like GP's, or you slowly wither down the enemy lynx (as each shot damages the vehicles).
Sticky Foam can also be used to immobilize a portion of the enemy's mobile defense either to divide and conquer (sticky half the force and destroy the other etc) or you can immobilize and circumvent the enemy's defense all together.
On Defense, Sticky Foam is also great to block bottlenecks (See Pie Chart) or it can be used for delaying an enemy advance, as it still retains range superiority.

My suggestion for Sticky Foam: Reduce or Remove it's damage capabilities, either to Structures or both Structures & Vehicles. This way sticky will still retain some of it's niche in the game, but it will be less of a offensive weapon.

NOTE: Sticky upgrade is still bugged right ?

On Micro vs Laser:
I disagree that we should try to make the weapons more similar, rather I would like to see Laser get some sort of boost.
Could it be an idea to increase the range of Laser ? Lasers would get in 1st shot + firing while falling back becomes an option (Possible this could be achieved by decreasing range of microwave weapon as well?)
Another idea could be to reduce cost of Lasers (Or Lynx itself which would also strengthen Rail Gun), so that increased number of Lasers can compensate a bit for the lack of strength.

On the other hand, in the late stages of the game we face 2 issues:
1) EMP Missiles
2) Plymouth lacks the weaponry to effectively assault a fortified position (Read GPs behind walls), without Missile Support

These two issues goes hand in hand, and while Missile Spamming can be quite game breaking, it is also Plymouths strong offensive point (And unique in the game) and Eden has some (Bugged?) defense for it.

1) The problem with EMP missiles is not the EMP missile itself, but rather that they can be spammed quite easily (Build 10 Spaceports and rotate with idling). And while I feel that as Eden you should be able to handle a few missiles, the spamming itself will eventually overcome any missile defense.
My suggestions in trying to balance this issue is twofolded:
A) Increase the cost of EMP Missiles (Right now they give a lot of bang for your bucks).
B) Increase the time between missile launch and missile impact - this gives the Eden player a bit more time to react + allow for cooldown of MDs.
(Ideally I think the Plymouth player should be able to carpetbomb an area and/or eventually overcome Meteor Defenses - but these tactics should have a much bigger impact on the economy of the player, not something they can continuously repeat)

2) Plymouth lacks effective assault weapons (Especially wihtout missile backup).
Sure they have RPG that can take down walls and structures, but RPG is relatively slow in this process and lacks the range to do it efficiently. Especially if the Eden player has time to reinforce his defensive position with a few Acid/EMP Tigers. If the Plymouth player takes out the walls initially, this buys Eden time to reinforce. If Plymouth sends RPG's at the GP's first, they lose some of their ability to punch hole's in the wall afterwards - and again Eden has time to reinforce.

(Comparatively, Thor's Hammer has both range and power to quickly clear out either GP's, Walls or both. Acid Cloud can also be used to take out GP's)

Suggestive fixes: Add some range to RPG ? Increase RPG damage to walls ? Area effect to RPG ?

As for Rail vs RPG:
Rail Gun is inferior to RPG, but it's not by that much in terms of damage only. Rail Gun also achieves its max damage output a bit slower than RPG, but again, not by much. What I feel really distinguishes the two weapons is the ability of RPG to fire over obstacles - which is what really gives it an advantage when players are using common ore weapons only.

I really think that Rail Gun can be compared to Panthers - which is the least used of the combat units. The problem with both is that they fall between two chairs. In Rail Gun's case Thor's Hammer is both more powerful and has better range, and there simply is no role for Rail Gun.

Suggested fix for Rail vs RPG: Keep status quo. I think we must accept that there is some differences between the 2 colonies. (Potentially, see next section of Rail vs Thor)

Rail Gun and Thor's Hammer:
Thor is the natural next step on the Rail Gun research line towards Heat Dissipating Systems. Unfortunately this also leads to Rail Gun becoming obsolete (Assuming there is access to Rare ore). Thor has both better firepower and range (And can fire above obstacles), leaving Rail Gun without any specific role.

My suggestion is to decrease power of Thor a bit, by decreasing it's range. Decrease it by 1 (maybe 2) squares - You will still have the strongest weapon in the game, but it will lose a bit of it's offensive capabilities (It will take fire from GP's and other units before it can get close enough to fire, rather than to have both power and range advantage over most other weapons).
On the other hand also increase the range of Rail gun by 2 (More?) squares. This way Rail Gun will still have a unique role + it will increase Rail Guns stats a bit compared to RPG.

I think the biggest challenge in balancing OP2 is the fact that there are really only 3 units, and you just glue different weapons to them.  Thor's Hammer would be easier to balance if it was on a slow, fragile unit, but we can't change that without impacting every other weapon.  To that end, how do people feel about this: Plymouth gets Lynx tech mid-game, and instead their first combat unit is the Scorpion.  We buff Scorpion speed, move them to the Vehicle Factory, reduce the cost, and get rid of the separate Scorpion/Scorpion 3-pack options (Scorpions should just always come out as 3-packs).  This will address some of the early game balance concerns, give the colonies different personalities (expensive elites vs. cheap cannon fodder) and make Scorpions actually, you know, useful.  If we want to take it further, we could also retool Microwave from an early-game weapon to a powerful late-game one; possibly some kind of long-range sniper weapon to match Thor's Hammer.

Lots of good material here that maybe we can some up quickly. Maybe we can modify this list to start and roll out a test version of the game? Start up some multiplayer battles and see how it goes.

(THIS LIST IS THE CURRENT WEAPONS LIST IN OP2 AND CAN BE MODIFIED)

Code Name	Damage Radius	Weapon Range	Turret Turn Rate	Concussion DMG	Penetration DMG	Common Cost	Rare Cost	Build Time	Reload Time
Laser	16	4	11	0	35	450	0	15	35
Microwave	16	4	11	20	20	450	0	15	30
Foam	16	5	6	0	100	600	0	5	90
Rail Gun	16	6	11	80	40	850	0	15	80
EMP	48	5	6	256	0	900	0	10	140
ACID	48	6	6	15	10	950	200	10	150
THOR	32	7	11	0	260	1200	300	5	120
Scorpion	16	2	16	0	20	100	0	5	25
EMP Missile	320	0	0	225	0	0	0	0	0

Not sure why the EMP Missile cost shows 0. That show up in a different list maybe? Anywho...

This might help everyone decide on what and how much we should change things.

[dave_erald]

I also realized I forgot to add ESG (Labeled as SPAM in the weapons list I believe) and RPG (Labeled as Cannon in the weapons list)

And I am unsure where you would adjust EMP missile cost, or change ESG to be non discriminatory (if that was even a thought)

Code Name	Damage Radius	Weapon Range	Turret Turn Rate	Concussion DMG	Penetration DMG	Common Cost	Rare Cost	Build Time	Reload Time
Laser	16	4	11	0	40	450	0	15	35
Microwave	16	4	11	20	20	450	0	15	30
Foam	16	5	6	0	100	600	0	5	90
Rail Gun	16	8	11	80	40	850	0	15	80
EMP	48	5	6	256	0	900	0	10	140
RPG	32	6	16	60	40	850	0	15	55
ESG	48	5	11	40	40	900	100	5	255
ACID	48	6	6	15	10	950	200	10	150
THOR	32	5	11	0	260	1200	300	5	120
Scorpion	16	2	16	0	20	100	0	5	20
EMP Missile	320	0	0	225	0	0	0	0	0

So the changes here would be

• Laser Penetration DMG is now 40 up from 35 but reload time remains 35 compared to Microwave total dmg same but a reload time of 30
• Rail gun range is now 8 up from 6
• RPG splash DMG up to 32 from 16
• THOR range decreased from 7 to 5
• Scorpion reload time decreased from 25 to 20

Is that enough to warrant testing? Any other suggestions? How would weapons upgrades affect these new numbers and play-ability?

And last question, does anyone have a rough idea what effect Concussion DMG has compared to Penetration DMG where armor is concerned?

[lordpalandus]

One thing I recall from modding the game to my own preferences is that there is a "maximum" ingame limit on range. I think it is 9, but not entirely sure. Well, it is that or the AI has its own built in "scanning range". So perhaps as an example: Microwave has range of 4 and scanning range of 4 and if you increase weapon range to 5, the AI will still only check for targets to attack within range 4, but the player can manually attack a target up to 5 spaces away.

The EMP Missile here is likely just the Warhead, and the effect the warhead produces when it "fires". Thus the cost of it is stored elsewhere, and the costs listed for other weapons here is "additive" ontop of the "chassis cost". So, as an example, ingame the cost to build a Microwave Lynx is 750 common, but here the listed cost is 450... thus that means the chassis cost of a lynx is 300 common.

I also note that the ESG's reload time is MUCH longer than Acid Cloud. Is this accurate ingame though? I seem to recall ESG reloading about as fast as an Acid Cloud from my own testing attempts, so there may be a bug here or I'm miss remembering. Either is possible.

[Arklon]

I also note that the ESG's reload time is MUCH longer than Acid Cloud. Is this accurate ingame though? I seem to recall ESG reloading about as fast as an Acid Cloud from my own testing attempts, so there may be a bug here or I'm miss remembering. Either is possible.

It is. Also, with Grenade Loading Mechanism, Acid's reload delay is 120, and ESG's is 200. But also consider ESG mines stick around a lot longer than acid cloud does.

[dave_erald]

And the fact that ESG's melt Lynx vehicles. That's kinda why it would be nice to have Rail gun long range

[Sirbomber]

Then get Tigers to soak the ESG instead of feeding your Lynx to them?  Granted ESG should probably see a reduction to damage dealt.

[dave_erald]

Just watched a pile of mine melt in front of only four of 9ball's esg lynx. I would pour a drink out for them, but they are autonomous thank god.

[dave_erald]

@Vagabond I was thinking about the map making and coding aspect of the game and was wondering if just recoding some of the Last One Standing multiplayer missions would be enough to generate more interest in gaming (currently their are only two maybe three maps that are balanced)

What should be made is a simple blueprint to follow when making multiplayer missions. Each base is roughly this shape with this many ore mines and placed in roughly the same configuration.

We keep talking about balancing weapon variants and we really dont have many maps to play them on. (It's possible there are more maps then I can think of but it's just as likely there are way way way more that are not)

[lordpalandus]

A way to encourage others to do multiplayer is to encourage games with both morale and disasters on. I'm personally not interested in playing the multiplayer, as is, for 2 reasons: 1) I'm a noob and I'd get crushed by those who have learned how to easily micromanage the combat aspects and 2) If I wanted to play a pure combat game without morale, I wouldn't play Outpost 2; I'd play something like StarCraft or C&C. The unique aspects of gameplay that Outpost 2 offers is what entices me to play it; without it, I can't be bothered to play multiplayer and hence why I do play colony/starship missions instead as those do have morale and disasters which adds something really awesome to the gameplay. Removing it makes multiplayer boring for me.

[dave_erald]

Brings up yet another caveat of multiplayer experience I know I seldom see just for the simple fact that most games started in multplay seem to be geared towards fast and simple.

There is a great opportunity for long complete games that very rarely happen. I don't know what would be required to entice people into playing that way though.

[lordpalandus]

Well, my thoughts on encouraging people to use Morale and Disasters is to:

1) Increase the positive impacts of morale by a factor of x2, x3, or x4. Thus, if normally an unit is produced in 30 seconds at current stable morale, if you could produce that unit in 15, 10, or 7.5 seconds due to extremely high morale, then players might be enticed to turn off morale as those with the highest morale will have the greatest advantage. Leave negative aspects of morale alone, to not be extremely punitive to the player who prefers to rush units but give the player with high morale an edge in both the short-term and long-term against the unit rusher. This will also as a result increase birth rates immensely and decrease death rates immensely.

2) Make disasters have no negative morale impact by researching the various disaster research topics. Thus, if you research these, then when an earthquake occurs, and you have earthquake warning, you take no morale penalty, but the other player without it will take the full impact.

3) Create a research topic that causes units destroyed by enemy fire or self-destruct to leave a rubble pile. If you have a GORF, you then have a reason to build one as any battles you survive will allow you to scavenge the corpses of your units or your enemies, to get a quick supply of resources.

4) Make morale level have an impact on scientist training speed and on worker trained speed. Thus, at high morale, scientists and workers will get trained faster.

5) Make morale level have an impact on research speed and thus will result in faster research performed.

By having these involved, the gameplay would still be fast-paced, but a morale-focused player won't necessarily get steam rolled by the player that prefers to do a unit rush. Not sure though if any of these would be implementable; you'd only really want to implement these to discourage unit rushing in a morale/disaster game while still keeping the game sufficiently fast-paced.

EDIT: Basically, if a player wants a more slow-paced colony-game, then they will stick to offline play. But, to encourage online play you basically have to spend more time convincing the players that prefer a stable morale/no disasters game to play an unstable morale/disaster game. Those players need to feel encouraged to focus on colony matters, need to feel that it will be extremely hard for unit rushes early game if they focus on colony matters, and feel that if they do focus on colony matters it won't lead to an extremely long game.

[Hooman]

#4 and #5 already happen. Granted, the effect is determined when you start training or researching, and remains fixed throughout the duration, even if your morale changes.

[lordpalandus]

How difficult would it be then to have it fluctuate with morale?

EDIT: Another thought/idea has occurred to me: Game Shadowing (probably not the right term but oh well). Basically, some new players or old players that haven't played multiplayer, are hesistant to play multiplayer because of the massive difference in skill levels. Some veteran players here have been playing multiplayer for ages, some even when the official servers were still active. Thus some of us are hesistant to play because we know we'd get massacred, probably get disheartened, and then stay away from multiplayer completely. So, I suggest game shadowing, which is similar to job shadowing where a new employee shadows a veteran employee to learn the ropes. In regards to Outpost 2, game shadowing could be done by having two new players each aligned with two veteran players in a 2v2 match. The veteran players could decide to focus on eachother, which would allow the newer players to watch and learn and practice their skills by observing the veteran players and then when ready, could attack the other new player. I doubt it would work to have two new players fight eachother as it would be difficult to know if they are doing things right. Logisitically, this may be hard to setup, but could serve as a way to lesson the learning curve for multiplayer games for new players.

[Hooman]

The problem with having things fluctuate with morale is the length of time needed for training or research is set based on morale. You'd have to modify the system to affect the rate, rather than the length. A slight weakness of the design as currently chosen.


For multiplayer games, you could allow observers, or you could allow team games. This would be more suitable for a game remake than hacking it in, although I don't discount a possibility of hacking in such behaviour if enough thought is put into it.

Observers would be more like dead players that haven't disconnected. It seems like a fun way to share a game with someone who isn't playing. Observers give rise to a slight security concern relating to game fairness. There's a possibility they could message other players (either in game, or out of game), and possibly upset the balance through an informational advantage, such as warnings of a sneak attack. There's also the idea of giving the observers more information, such as complete colony stats for both sides to make watching more interesting, and again creating the potential for information leakage. Of course if someone really wanted such information, a hack could provide it, since all clients already know the complete state of the game.

Starcraft allowed for team games, and it was awesome. I loved that idea. It would really help with Outpost 2 since there is so much more colony management going on. It would ease the burden if two players could operate a colony jointly. Maybe people would actually have time to use garages.

[Highlander]

The problem with Morale is that it is easily manipulated. Give all those Morale bonuses and Eden will rule the map as soon as they have their consumer good factory up and running.
Just keep pumping out choice items for constant 99% morale (Sort of anyways).


As for ESG, I would suggest that mines stay longer on the ground - making it more possible to stop an advance, but without making ESG into a very powerful offensive weapon.


Missiles - Is it possible to load different weapon systems onto the Missiles ? Sticky Foam (Without building damage) and ESG Missiles could be used.


Possibility to revive dead allies by transferring colonists with Evac transports (From CC to CC).

[dave_erald]

Okay, heres a good question, how hard would it be to hack in team selection pre game start? The idea would be to have maps pre programmed with team start locations and game start already be setup as teams rather than having to select afterwards?

[Sirbomber]

Missiles - Is it possible to load different weapon systems onto the Missiles ? Sticky Foam (Without building damage) and ESG Missiles could be used.

Yes, that's a great idea, make the most overpowered thing in the game even more overpowered.  Because it's not enough to be able to disable anything anywhere on the map for over a minute, you also need to be able to destroy any army without ever leaving your base.  You know, we actually have code laying around that gives Eden a nuclear missile.  It can one-shot entire bases and it's so much fun to use.  Why don't we add that to the next patch and see how enjoyable it is for you to be on the receiving end of it?

[dave_erald]

Never one for beating around the bush are you?

Secondly, Yay for Eden Nukes am I right?

[lordpalandus]

For the missiles:

If these are so overpowered then maybe...

Why don't we just give Plymouth the EMP Missile, and also give them the meteor defense/observatory and the RLV. While at the same time, give Eden the meteor defense/observatory and RLV, and also give them the EMP Missile. That way, both players are on even playing fields with both Missile use, and of course defending their base from meteors and missiles. Thus, it would take something that is overpowered and level the playing fields for both players. That or give Eden some kind of alternative powerful weapon that could be used on Plymouth, to keep the factions unique.

For the nuke:

The purpose of a super weapon is a game ender; its always been the case. Whether that is C&C, Supreme Commander, StarCraft or Planetary Annihilation. If you don't like Super Weapons, then don't play games with them. I personally veto super weapons for Outpost 2. It doesn't fit the theme of the game. If attacking a Residence with a Laser Lynx causes -7000 morale for 10 game minutes, what would be appropriate for an atrocity-scale weapon? They decide to assassinate their own leader, and then mass commit suicide? No, it doesn't work.

For Eden Consumer Factories:

If the fear of morale and thus keeping it out of multiplayer, is because these exist, then maybe we should:
1) Nerf the positives of the morale boost for multiplayer.
2) Give Plymouth one too so that both players can spam resources.
3) Remove it from multiplayer to prevent morale abuse.
4) Increase the costs and time to produce the various goods, to serve as a good temporary but expensive measure to get out of a Terrible Morale slump, but be expensive enough that it would be cheaper in the long-run to build recreational centers, residences, and medical centers instead.
5) Some combination of the above?

[Arklon]

As for ESG, I would suggest that mines stay longer on the ground - making it more possible to stop an advance, but without making ESG into a very powerful offensive weapon.

Missiles - Is it possible to load different weapon systems onto the Missiles ? Sticky Foam (Without building damage) and ESG Missiles could be used.

To be blunt, these are incredibly biased suggestions that sound like something out of the cesspit that is the StarCraft 2 forums. This is about as ridiculous as asking for Thor's Hammer to be buffed. I'm not even going to address these.

For the missiles:

If these are so overpowered then maybe...

Why don't we just give Plymouth the EMP Missile, and also give them the meteor defense/observatory and the RLV. While at the same time, give Eden the meteor defense/observatory and RLV, and also give them the EMP Missile. That way, both players are on even playing fields with both Missile use, and of course defending their base from meteors and missiles. Thus, it would take something that is overpowered and level the playing fields for both players. That or give Eden some kind of alternative powerful weapon that could be used on Plymouth, to keep the factions unique.

Bad suggestions. The two factions shouldn't just be reskins of each other. Not to mention giving Eden the EMP Missile and Plymouth Meteor Defenses doesn't actually fix the issues with them, i.e. how spammable missiles are and how they tend to create boring stalemates, or how much of an investment Meteor Defenses are. At the very least, missiles should take longer to land (I believe they take 5 seconds), and Meteor Defenses should never fail when firing at EMP Missiles. I believe the bug where MDs would always fail if a missile was targeted on top of a MD (even if there are other MDs nearby) was fixed in 1.3.5.

Of course, that still doesn't deal with how much you have to invest to get MDs - for EMP missiles, you only need 1 extra tech after Space Program, whereas for MDs you need 3. Then, you need to make an Observatory, which takes 3 scientists away from research, then each MD uses 100 power and 2 workers, and then in order to attack you have to MD creep to your opponent (which is impractical on the vast majority of maps other than Pie Chart or La Corrida) which means lots of MDs, and it adds up really fast and is a pain to set up in general.

The Plymouth player can idle his Spaceports with EMP Missiles on them until he wants to launch, but idling the Obervatory and MDs isn't "safe" - you have to activate every MD since you have no idea where the missile was targeted, and you only have a few seconds to do so (it wouldn't be that bad if you could select and hotkey multiple structures, but you can't).

Substantially increasing the time until the missile lands should remove the necessity for MD creeping, which helps Plymouth vs. Plymouth as well since they obviously don't get MDs at all. MD-related techs should probably be consolidated, and maybe even remove the Observatory altogether.

The nuke was made for a custom mission, it's not going to be put in the main game.

For Eden Consumer Factories:

If the fear of morale and thus keeping it out of multiplayer, is because these exist, then maybe we should:
1) Nerf the positives of the morale boost for multiplayer.
2) Give Plymouth one too so that both players can spam resources.
3) Remove it from multiplayer to prevent morale abuse.
4) Increase the costs and time to produce the various goods, to serve as a good temporary but expensive measure to get out of a Terrible Morale slump, but be expensive enough that it would be cheaper in the long-run to build recreational centers, residences, and medical centers instead.
5) Some combination of the above?

No to giving it to Plymouth because of the "keep different factions different" reason I gave about the EMP Missile, plus it doesn't fix the underlying issues with it. The CGF, at least Impulse Items, should be nerfed, probably by increasing the production time, decreasing the effect duration, and/or limiting how many times it can stack. It should be mentioned that the CGF isn't very effective when there's too much negative pressure on your morale, but it's otherwise OP. Rec Centers/Forums should be buffed in the way of changing the morale formula to make it counteract the effect of unoccupied colonists, rather than adding an additional structure demand.

[dave_erald]

Alright Arklon, what if Meteor defense was available sooner (or quite the opposite EMP missiles were offered later in the game) If nothing else in someway, however it was done, could be made a little more equal for both sides (EMP missiles cost more than what they do now, and need to be put back in the tech tree just a little further) this way it doesn't eliminate the use of EMP missiles altogether but rather reduces the rate of spamming that is incurred.

The Meteor Defense creep? Someone needs to explain that one to me, but, if it works like I think it sounds like it should work does that mean the Meteor Defense has to be with in so many yards of a potential EMP Missile landing to make it actually work in destroying it before it lands? If that's the case, and here comes a big 'what if' so hold on, what if Light Towers (which in most games are rendered useless because nobody plays day/night cycle) could be used as EMP Missile Spotters, or some kind of localized defense canopy? A small area around the guard post acts like an extension of the Missile Defense? Maybe? I don't know, now that I type this I realize that's a lot of work for not much gain. Just looking for more uses for the Light Towers is all.

[Arklon]

Alright Arklon, what if Meteor defense was available sooner (or quite the opposite EMP missiles were offered later in the game) If nothing else in someway, however it was done, could be made a little more equal for both sides (EMP missiles cost more than what they do now, and need to be put back in the tech tree just a little further) this way it doesn't eliminate the use of EMP missiles altogether but rather reduces the rate of spamming that is incurred.

I don't know what additional tech Rocket Atmospheric Re-Entry System could be made dependent on that would make sense. It wouldn't really help to move MD techs up since there is no reason to go that path until missiles are in play, but Eden would still want to get Space Program anyway since it's a prerequisite for Efficiency Engineering. Missiles should probably cost more (I have played games against people who made 10+ Spaceports all churning out missiles), count against your vehicle cap (since when you are maxed there's really no reason not to spam missiles), and/or make the EMP effect only last as long as it does from EMP turrets, but I think the main change that's needed is make them take longer to land.

The Meteor Defense creep? Someone needs to explain that one to me, but, if it works like I think it sounds like it should work does that mean the Meteor Defense has to be with in so many yards of a potential EMP Missile landing to make it actually work in destroying it before it lands? If that's the case, and here comes a big 'what if' so hold on, what if Light Towers (which in most games are rendered useless because nobody plays day/night cycle) could be used as EMP Missile Spotters, or some kind of localized defense canopy? A small area around the guard post acts like an extension of the Missile Defense? Maybe? I don't know, now that I type this I realize that's a lot of work for not much gain. Just looking for more uses for the Light Towers is all.

It literally means build a line of MDs going to your opponent's base so you can actually move your army up. The Light Tower thing sounds really ad-hoc, I don't like it. Light Towers should give "enemy unit sighted" messages like Scouts do, which would be nice on maps like Pie Chart to alert you to someone sending Starflares in the back door or something.

[lordpalandus]

Well, then how about disabling the ability to build EMP missiles in Multiplayer? Sometimes the simplest solution is the best solution.

Alternatively, you could modify Observatories to require fewer scientists, and have MDs require less power and workers, to make it easier for Eden players.

Alternatively, you could modify the build time and build cost of EMP missiles, to make it harder to mass produce/spam them.

Alternatively, you could increase the cost to build a Spaceport dramatically and increase its power requirements.

Alternatively, like in some C&C games, have a toggle to disable EMP missiles and MDs, to prevent long-stalemates.

Alternatively, like in some C&C games, you could have a set limit of how many structures of a specific type they can build. ie a Limit of 3 Spaceports, or a limit of 3 MDs, or a limit of 3 Vehicle Factories; etc.

Alternatively, increase the rare ore cost (only rare cost) of EMP missiles. Rare ore often takes the longest to acquire, thus, if missiles had a high rare ore cost, it would be prohibitively expensive to build lots of them.

Alternatively, like in StarCraft 1 with the nuke, produce a "dot" where the missile will land. Thus, the Eden player, will have an idea where it will land and thus can activate just those MDs.

Finally, one last alternative is: Don't play multiplayer. If balancing the missile and MD is too hard, don't play multiplayer. Problem solved

[dave_erald]

Actually, the single spaceport idea isnt half bad if you think about it, and the implementation may not be entirely that difficult.

Think of how the Basic Lab disappears from the build list after you build one