Some thoughts on balance

The only lacking thing is a working math problem that shows us the recipe, Colin.
Warp drive isn't working right now because we don't have a full understanding of the math behind it. Also, we don't have negative energy yet. Essentially, we have a workable theory. That's it.


Also, Balance isn't an invention or discovery. THIS ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE.

We are moving numbers around based on feel. This is the farthest thing from rocket science. Why are we comparing it to rocket science?

10/10 for the mental gymnastics, would read again.

So, it wasn't about units being clearly defined at all! It was about respecting uber (which i didn't ask you to do lol).

The mystery deepens...

I would argue that a unit is defined by it's stats. To find it's stats, you need to look at it's implementation. What someone said some time ago doesn't change anything. (also personal attacks are never good)

Not only is this factually incorrect, I fail to see it's relevance.

it matters that the unitpool needs to be well structured first before you get it into the Details of truely matching what each unit exactly should do and were it truly exels at ...

You are making zero sense. Wanna come back in into the room where we can actually hear eachother?

These statements contradict each other.

If I could reference a talk that nanolathe and I had previously on balance:

The issue is that, all units seem to be able to fill the role of combat units.

Therefore, you can choose one unit type and use it exclusively because all units are combat units. Being that it is this way, if one unit is more efficient than another it will be used exclusively….

Hence T1 bombers, dox spam, bolo spam.

It also makes pummeler better than catapults.

This will make any balance extremely difficult, because if one unit is slightly more efficient than another it will replace it therefore making the other obsolete.

I believe what he is trying to say, and what I got out of him after a few back-and-forths… …

When the unit has a defined role, for example, a radar jamming but, a blue Hawk having AA for bot tech, having a cloaking but, having a long-range artillery vehicle exclusively..

(Please pardon my grammar, lack of commas, and all that jazz… I'm dictating and may or may not be driving right now)

So… What I mean by all this jabber, is that when units have different roles besides being just combat units it makes for a diverse army and not just using bolos late game because they're the most efficient, are using docs is early game because they are more efficient, are using T1 bombers because they are more efficient… at the state that it is balance is a very difficult and minute possibility, because, the units come down to Roloff time efficiency damage per second range site, all these little things are what matters not what the unit actually does because they all kill ****.

The unit compositions should be either mixed with all the benefits of all the units, or specified, for example such as a exclusive tank force that does a ton of DPS but lacks site and or range so it can be outmaneuvered and picked off by a bot force or even countered by a half tank half bot force that has both site vision and moderate DPS.

When units all do DPS, the T2 bummer, blue Hawk, sheller, The most efficient one will be built making the others obsolete. I'm more fine tuned role for the unit, Will make going vehicles or bot, or both advantageous and disadvantageous with her unit mix or without a unit mix. Tweaking the costs and stats of existing units that all kill stuff will be very difficult to have all units the same efficiency/damage/usefulness.

I hope all that makes sense because I am not going to proofread it, I'm a safe driver.

I don't get way people think units have no roles. They clearly have roles. The implementation is lacking, but that is a vastly different issues.

looking at how there are a ton of people who seem to have quite a different idea on how it actually "works" and how some of these people behave I can completely understand why Uber doesn't really bother with it, or rather choses a way to bother with it that is so passive that some people end up thinking they are ignored.
It's harder than building rockets in a way.

A massive amount of modesty would make these discussions so much easier.

those stats don´t matter if it does´t match with were you want them to be ..

simple example ... you can´t use a a feitherweight boxer for a heavyweightboxfight for when he doesn´t have the weight ... should be pretty obvious

If I'm understanding Nano correctly what he's saying is that unit's roles aren't clearly defined because they can't fulfil their roles. You are correct that that's because they are badly implemented and that doesn't mean they don't have a role, but Nano is correct when he says that they might as well didn't have one.

A unit that can't fulfil a role of a tank is not really a tank, even if it's supposed to be one.

Are you sure about that?

Is a Dox being defined as a "raider" really a clear role definition?
Wouldn't it be better to define it by its statistics? Clear and precise numbers in reference to its ability and compared to other units?

To define something, you must go into detail. A Dox's "detail" is in its specific statistics, not in a single word.

You think rocket scientists don't have people problems too? Cola, what?

Every organization has to deal with negative feedback. Most suppress it. Those that don't? They have to deal with it. And by making that noble choice, they are saying they are ready for it.

Look, Starmade's devs have continually impressed me with their outright honesty and willingness to talk to the community. Uber has not. Ever.

a mashinegun that has massive spread can´t be called a shotgun, can it ? ... it is a very inaccurate mashinegun

it is one thing to see what something actualy does and another with what you want it to actualy do

Definition:

Mashinegun

high rate of fire
be acurate


implementation/execution:

Point one : true or false?
Point two : true or false?

in a engineer/ industrial mechanic jargon
specified size and actual size ...
or better "shouldbe" stats and "is" stats


saying that x is not clearly defined because it acts differently is a fallacy ...
it simply is a case of x not doing what it is intendet to do
as some else mentioned it
x is defined but badly executed/implemented
theory vs actual facts
that doesn´t mean neccesarily
facts = actual intended theory

I think the problem might be that some units have too wide of a role, and in most games this is counterbalanced by rock paper and scissor mechanic usually by damage type and armor type. WSIWYG have a big problem cause doesn't have those mechanics so it is harder to define a appropriate role and make the unit good for it without breaking others. Sometimes a change that is intended to improve a units role, impedes the other of doing it's role.

I think what we all really want to know is: Where is the unit cannon?

I would put the 135 pound Bruce Lee against any heavy weight fighter period.

Size means nothing. Just like the units in this game "how their set up for combat" determines how they will perform in combat.

It is clear enough too me. You might need a definition for "raider" to make it clearer. But in general it is a definition for the role of the dox. Maybe not as clearly defined as you want it, but it is a definition of the role nevertheless.

No rocket scientists don't have to deal with this kind of people problem. In science you also usually can actually either define a definite proof for your claims or you can do an experiment to prove them, no subjectivity involved. Balance in turn is a lot about subjectivity.
Sadly some people in the discussion have a modesty level somewhere in the negative and that makes it very hard to have a serious discussion about balance.

taking the example completely out of context

Then this is a problem of semantics over personal opinion.

I hold, what I consider to be a definition, to a much higher standard than you do.