About T2: Upgrades vs Sidegrades

Hi everybody,

I have noticed a couple of times that some people have the following opinion:

As long as T2 units are awesome, why is it a problem when a T2 tanks outclasses (is more expensive and performs better per Metal cost) a T1 tank? Isn't it a part of the natural progression of the game the some older units become obsolete?

And by the way, in the games I have played so far (1v1 mostly), we never reached a point where armies consist only of T2 land units. And even then, there would still be T1 air, naval, orbital, long range artillery and nukes around to spice things up.

I think you would find that in any of the balance mods that use a 'flat' Advanced balance, there are more T2 units and more diversity than the regular Upgrade T2.

That's why we think it is better. Because it gives more diversity and unit compositions. It also gives an interesting gameplay flow.

i wouldn´t neccesarily say upgrade ...

let´s take grenadiers and shellers both are artillery
so one could say the Sheller is an upgrade to the grenadier ... still the sheller could behave way different to the granadier so that there still would be scenarios were the Grenadier would be better suited to be used than the sheller ..

If t2 units are just like t1 units, but from another factory, where is the difference to just putting those units into a t1 factory instead?

Timing, capital investment and gated complexity.

One of the most important things about the balance mods is the cost of T2.

Right now T2 simply costs too much so it's rarely built in a 1v1. Gotta build more units gotta build more factories building anything else means you fall behind in the ant/dox spam count and lose.

If we bring down the cost of T2, we instantly have access to greater gameplay diversity through more units.

When did Mered say T1 units should be just like T2 units?

Oh wait, he didn't.

He's actually advocating for making T1 and T2 units more different, just bringing down the cost to make them more accessible and actually used. Seriously, when was the last time you saw T2 used in a 1v1 on the PA Stats ladder?

Stop manipulating and twisting Mered's words.

I think you should know I agree that we don't see t2 anymore, I wrote quite some text on how to fix that in my own way: Mostly by giving players more resources by allowing them to expand "for real". Not this tiny pseudo expansion we have now.

Also I am not manipulating mereds words or twisting them. I am reading them, understanding something from them, and formulate a question based on them. If that question looks like "wttfbbq" to mered, you or whoever else it means that I did not understand what mered wanted to express in his post.
So instead of attacking me and accusing me of twisting words it would've been better to actually answer the question.

Thankfully @nanolathe gave a short answer on it. As nanolathe himself probably realizes that answer isn't long enough to get a full understanding of how exactly it should work, but I think I get at least some idea of where the issue is.
I am pretty sure if we continue this discussion we'll see half the post be just like your "you are twisting words" post and the other half will end up discussing the semantics of "investement" or whatever.
So I don't want to start on this, finding a formulation of a common ground on it is virtually impossible, I am happy just to at least get an idea where the issue is.
I guess I'll read through the RCBM balance papers, haven't seen them a while. That might give me a better understanding.

Also I really don't like posts that use bold parts like that. I sometimes catch myself writing words in CAPITAL for some reason, but I try to proof read and not actually post that. Using bold or capital letters comes over aggressive and doesn't help the discussion at all.

I could go into a lot more detail if you like @cola_colin. As I'm sure you're aware, I've been advocating the same kind of balance that I've managed to create in RCBM for over a year now. If you've read anything on my views before, you'll already know all about it.

But, the offer is there. I'll gladly explain what I mean by each of those terms I used above if you would like me to.

It's not aggression. It's emphasis.

As for the other stuff, I'm not sure how you got that Mered was advocating to make T1 and T2 the same. He never said that nor has he said anything remotely like that in any of his discussion on balance.

While the ship has sailed, there would be one compelling reason for following a T2-specialists approach: PA's unit roster is none too varied, making every unit that obsoletes another not an upgrade but only a reskin. PA lacks the baseline variety needed to justify mere reskins, as do Uber's resources.
Commanders notwithstanding, of course.

I recall neutrino saying "increasing unit variety is one of the easiest things to do".
The ship hasn't really sailed, it's just that Uber does not see the need to invest anything in this area.

Which is a hugely more compelling argument than one would think.

To be perfectly honest, the units we have now in the T2 level are all just *MOAR DAKKA AND RANGE FOR COST EFFICIENCY*

I mean, every single T2 unit has more than or equal to the range and damage of its t1 counterpart. That's usually the only change (some exceptions, most notably the T2 bomber).

It's a copycat thing.

If we have flat T2, then we can diversify the roles of the units beyond just extra range and damage.

Flat T2 is a upgrade with a downgrade.

It looks aggressive to me. Doesn't matter what you mean by doing it, it looks aggressive. If you want to look aggressive, then continue.

For the other stuff: A perfect example how balance discussions quickly turn into misunderstandings. Even long written texts are not guaranteed to end up getting everyone to agree, even if some of the disagreeing readers actually agree without realizing it.
A single sentence can so easily be misinterpreted. You can write many pages of discussions just to find that the discussing parties just interpreted some claim completely different.

It's meant as emphasis. Dafuq is with this aggression stuff dude? It's not that big of a deal. I'm trying to emphasize certain points to make them stand out.

You can't exactly call making half of a post bold, emphasis.

You can't emphasise your whole post, that kinda undermines the point of using it.

Point taken.

When did I, or anyone, bold half a post?

I bolded one word.

No offence intended of course.

But hell I've been called aggressive for less.


So even if we disagree with what ever this whole issue has become (In this thread and the other), at the very least we can agree that these forums can be a little bizarre in....well it's self.

Not that I ever understand the sentiment that it used to be better, because that's just a blatant lie.

Not you, and in another thread, it was just brought up here.

Chill mon, chill.