T2 - What's really going on here?

[BALANCE=
This thread is going to be my proposal for balancing T2 in 1v1. This will not only include factories though, it will also include some changes to T2 air, which is terribad compared to T1 bombers ATM.

1v1 T2 Viability and what can be done about it:
There needs to be bigger maps. This is the biggest reason, imo, that T2 is not made. Not the only one, just the largest. The PTE map "Meso" (i think) is a size 750-800 radius planet (i think) and I consider going T2 there, but I dont because of the following reasons:

• T2 factories are so expensive that using fabbers to build it will automatically suicide you, if the game is still undecided.
• Energy demand to build this factory is insane, and using one fabber to build it will take half the game! I can't afford to even place one fabber on the factory because of energy drain, early game.

So, what can we do?

• Lower T2 factory cost, maybe even half. Well this is going to make T2 OP in FFA and team games right? Maybe. But a solution could be to increase T2 unit costs and/or increase efficiency of T2 economy. This would force more expansion with the extra eco, and more fabbers to use the eco means more units and more factories.
• Energy should be even more exponential. The curve is so slight in 1v1, that trying to go T2 will be suicide. Either make T1 fabbers more efficient and/or make T1 energy more efficient.

T2 unit balance:
Naval T2 looks fine now. Although IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE NAVAL TELEPORTERS!

T2 Air:

• Gunships are weak. They desperately need an HP increase. They should be meant to pick off groups of land without AA or metal without AA. They should be annoying flies.
• Advanced bombers: They are nothing compared to T1 bombers. The idea of making something like the Rapier was a good idea, but does not work with PA. It should either be a stealth bomber (specialized) or a bomber that drops a single, very powerful payload on the target. These should have VERY high HP, since they would essentially become bunker busters and tank killers.
• Peregrine. T2 anti air fighters are needed. But, it should NOT be a direct counter to the hummingbirds! The hummingbirds would be cancelled out. I believe all T2 units should be specialized, but for the most part, land T2 works out and is balanced. But THIS needs to be specialized, for some obvious reasons. I am unsure how it could be specialized, but it should be a SPECIALIZED, BETTER T2 Fighter.

T2 Vehicles:

• The only thing wrong with T2 vehicles is the leveller. A dox mob of 6 can take it out. I mean, really???! It needs a coaxial machine gun that has a high ROF but low damage. Honestly it would take probably a few minutes to add a coaxial cylinder to the model in blender, a few minutes to texture, then a few more minutes to create the weapon (which should be like the gunship's ammo). It's such a little addition that could go very far. I don't trust my levellers out in the open ONLY because of Dox. They can take care of anything else fine, with AA support.

T2 bots are mostly fine. I don't see a problem, but slammers should get a slight HP buff.
Tl;dr, Too much risk vs reward.]
[/BALANCE]
@tvinita

I can summarize the issue with t2 in a couple words.

Too much risk vs reward.

We shouldn't be trying to focus on t2 for 1v1s like it is the only desired result or the PRIMARY desired result.

That isn't the right approach. The problem is very simple, the symptoms are more complex, and the solution is a bit tedious. But that solution is completely worth it.

I appreciate your opinion, Kiwi, but you are going about this all wrong. Nanolathe, LocalMadSci, Stuart, brianpurkiss, myself, squishypon3, and countless others have already discovered the solution. In one way or the other, that solution has filtered into our respective balance mods. It's not hidden behind some curtain of thought - it is right there in front of you. We've presented it quite clearly.

If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them if someone else doesn't pounce first.

What other solution could there be besides things mentioned in the OP?

Just got to chip in my idea that would boost T2. Every T1 fabber can build every type of T2 factory. I don't see why not.

This is (in general) the process that solves the T2 problem. The specifics I leave to the person in charge of the balance flavor.
Step 1)
Realize that T2 cannot work as an upgrade to T1 if we want it to be considered on a regular basis in a balanced way for game strategy.
Step 2)
Half the cost and unit power of all T2 units, factories, and engineers.
Step 3)
Using your specific balance flavor, determine the specific roles you want t2 units to play. Test extensively to ensure that individual groups of T2 units or T2 strats are not overpowered or underused.
Step 4)
Profit.

I prefere the T2 not being so viable early on, i hated that time when T2 was the only thing you could do to win a game. In this case its not viable until 20 mins in, and that really seems like a good limit to me, while being more viable in team games

Well that's not necassarily true, t2 can be an upgrade and work. It just needs to be not as much of an upgrade/cost so much more to produce. The risk vs reward right now is just... Too damn high. I don't like upgrades either, but I can say they certainly can work.

This assumes T2 must be better than T1, rather than having set roles, etc... Having T2 be so ridiculously overpriced creates this huge imbalance in the game, the balance even changes very largely between say a 1v1 and a 2v2. T2 should be cheaper, muuuch cheaper, and much weaker to compensate. I don't mind if T2 is an upgrade per-say (Though I'd prefer it not be) and if it were then it'd have to be by a MUCH smaller margin as the difference now is just... Broken, the economy and tech balance is totally out of wack in my opinion.

Supcom couldn't do it. Why are we to believe that Uber can?

I'm not saying its not in their skill set - I'm saying we should go with the tried and true way of fixing the balance and making the most people happy AND bringing tons of folks back into the game.

If they can fix:
The problems with energy and the underlying problem of unit cost per metal,
T2,
Orbital expansion, and
Worthless units,
I'd be willing to go to bat for uber to bring back the folks who despise PAs balance.

No. More upgrades are not the answer - in addition, Uber ruled out a T3 a while ago on the grounds that they didn't want the terrifyingly bad experimental and T3 balance from SupCom anywhere near their game.

I'd argue that hallies, catalysts, nukes, and the unit cannon are T3.

I guess even orbital could be its own tier.

Too be fair Supcom is balanced quite well from what I understand about FAF.

@tatsujb

I mostly agree with you, though I think you don't put enough empathizes on the issues with economy. But I think people know my stance on it: the t1 fabber is an utterly wrong balanced unit and the balance between energy and metal on t1 is up side down and energy is meaningless on t2.

Also imho the slammer is too slow. it has a speed of 12, compared to the speed of 10 for vehicles. That's a rather small difference.

So reimplement SupCom v3599? The drama about upgrades aside the economy balance of SupCom is a good implementation that PA could copy quite a lot from.

I don't want the gameplay of supcom. It honestly bores me. I abandoned the game after a week of dedicated play, some competitive, some not.

I want something that isn't rigid. Yes, supcom is balanced well by the numbers. But the gameplay usually comes down to who is better at their build order, not where or when they send units.

@cola_colin
The problem can not be solved by changing JUST the energy problems - you have to fix the unit power per metal problem too.

What do you mean unit power per metal? Not the "energy" kind of power?

Welcome to the reality of competitive RTS games.

I believe he means a unit's health/metal, damage/metal, and dps/metal, etc...

I disagree with you in principle, I'm sure it's possible to get a competetive RTS game that includes more things than memorization of build orders, and etc.. Now an example could be Starcraft, where tactics is of huge importance, whilst with PA I'd argue it'd be towards the macro side of things. Basically we can make macro decisions very important in PA, as well as making balancing of economy, and etc... Important. Build order is just the beginning of the game in PA, the rest is essentially going with the flow of the battle.

No matter what you do the best strategy to play is always to know all possible solutions to any problem the game can throw at you before the match even starts. It's a hard realization and takes away a lot of the magical "the player just came up with that", but it's the truth.
</discussion>
So let's not derail this thread into a discussion about that kind of stuff though. It's besides the point really.

If we can get randomized symmetrical ranked maps, half of your argument will be invalid

Random

*laughs*