Some thoughts on balance

Nanolathe: Is there any attempt being made to come up with something cohesive this time, that will give all units a role that is more clearly defined?

Clopse: some people will argue the unit roles are defined.

Liqius: I tought the grenadier was this but not doing it because x and y.

Clopse: I agree, but that's a balance issue, It has a role.

Mered: something, stuff, balance

Clopse: stop going off in a tangent, was talking about roles.

So basically each unit as I said has a role. Which is what nano was asking for in the first post. Cohesive roles. They all have one. Maybe it's not what you guys want and that cool, but they have roles. So they had a paradigm or whatever new fancy word you wanna use and each unit had roles.

Again I'm not arguing about the balance of the units in their roles. When you guys started with rbm you had roles for each unit. And I remember early on mike knight was just spamming tanks and then you guys realised ah tanks were too diverse so changed them a bit. Uber have the same idea but for some reason beyond me havnt fine tuned the units as well as you guys.

Yep. I missed the train.

I'm not sure he does think that - I'm just trying to make sure he isn't assuming that.

I think this is when our thoughts diverged.

My point is that we can only take a guess as to what role the grenadier is supposed to fill. When you look at the stats my first thought is it looks like a medium assault bot (assuming the the Dox counts as a light assault bot).

Wondering if Uber is following the Reddit talk about orbital balance, since they were in the thread for naval balance last week...

Well that's where my "some people arguing" comes into play, the some being the people that watched all the live streams and heard garat meta and scathis talk about the units and the roles the were getting.

Then we're at an impasse @clopse. I really don't agree with you when you say that the roles are clearly defined for Uber's units. There are too many that are ill-defined (Grenadier, Gunship) or duplicate already present roles (Vanguard, Leveller, Slammer, T2 and T3 Laser towers, etc).

I could probably say the same for about half the unit roster if I'm totally honest. I either:

• Don't know what Uber's intended purpose for the unit is.
• See that a unit is not capable in performing its stated function.
• See that the unit is a near-duplicate of a role we already have with a power hike and a price change.

There's little variety in the unit roster to begin with, and a poor balance pass for several units has rendered many units sub-par to the point of irrelevance.

Yep, they made it pretty clear they wanted the Grenadier to be a light siege bot, firing over walls and hitting defenses from a bit longer range than the dox.

Then why does it possess absolutely zero capability to do so?

That isn't a clearly defined role. That's someone telling you that is has a role.

I agree it doest achieve the role well, but that was the role they intended. They do have ideas for unit roles, the only issue is they don't seem to get to that point... Admittedly a very pressing issue...

If you're incapable of matching your intentions with reality... I'd say that the intention isn't really worth anything.

So when you said you wanted clearly defined roles, what you actually wanted was perfect balance? You should have more clearly defined what you meant.

The units have roles. If the balance is not perfect yet and the units don't always fit those roles, that means Uber isn't done balancing the game. It doesn't say anything about the way they intend for the game to be balanced in the end.

Nope. He doesn't want perfection. Argue the point, Cap.

Which makes it a balance/adjustment issue to make it match the intended role, not an issue of a missing role. Is your complaint that the units haven't been balanced to match their roles, or that they don't have roles defined? You keep switching between the two, especially switching the meaning of "defined" with "implemented".

After saying you didn't want a semantic debate, you're doing a lot of word nit-picking here; to me, the intention being made in the posts are fairly clear.

It's that kind of statement that puts people offside.

I'm using the two words interchangeably because, to me, if you can't implement it, the unit isn't defined.

It isn't my fault that I value action and results more than words and intentions.

If wishes were horses... and all that.

t2 bomber single target sniping
bluehawks can´t fly hornet does ...

t2 gunship =airdox
dox can´t fly kestrel can


vanguard= meat shield with shotgun
high hp plus medium range aoe basicly THE swarmkiller fmpov


Inferno= ram
closerange highdamage pretty self explanatory ..


your straight answers .. you are welcome!

That's incredibly silly and you know it. Defined is not the same as implemented. I just hope you know this, because everyone else is looking at you like what is this guy smoking.

For example, people know how to make warp drives and the maths is defined. Just no one can implement it because it isn't feasibly possible.. yet. There is this thing called the imagination that people use to define things that don't exist in reality.

Also, they arn't saying it can't be implemented. They are saying it was badly implemented.

Oh brother..

What?

I'm sorry, but are you seriously asking me to respect Uber on a basis that is not on their achievable results, but on the power of their belief?

Your use of the word "can't" (and "incapable" in the previous post) is a good example of why you are finding yourself at odds with Uber. Keeping your tone and negativity in mind, please consider your earlier demand of Uber:

If you want common ground, it has to be both ways. This isn't at all constructive.

This is constructive. I'm being reminded of who isn't understanding Nanolathe's point of view.

You are one of them.

google for science stuff on real researches researching warp drives. They have quite some stuff figured out that indeed can be compared to a text you might write on balance.
Both have in common that they are theories that, based on the knowledge we have, may or may not work. The only lacking thing is a real world implementation that works.

So you need to define awesome stuff, like warp-drives or game balance, in your mind first.
Then you try to implement it. Quite different actions to me.