Message from Jon Mavor

*Opens this thread*

Oh boy, it's uh... just like old times! ;D

As on topic as it can get!

Fun to read though ^^

The question is @cdrkf is it okay for half of the unit roster to be useless in a 1v1? Why should units be restricted to FFAs?

units are as usefull as the game is going .. one rare example but a good one still imo
is a video @wpmarshall put up not so long ago .. even if it had moments were it could have ended sooner ..




i think it is simply the nature of such 1v1 maps that you don´t always get to see the lategamestuff ... however is it like realy neccesary that you get a set rate when lategame units should appear? .. do we have to have 20 - 30 or so percent of the 1v1 games to be about t2 units?
it rather is a thing good to have but not a neccesity imo ...

to me this is rather a thing of 2 players of similar level and unitunderstandment were both counter each other long enough and don´t get any significant advantage over the other for a considerable time to be able to build up to that stage ...


of course it is not ok for units to be useless .. as in them being entirely bad and insufficient by design ..
but it IS ok for units to not be used but for the time of nessecity .. and i do think you would make a mistake to force the use of a unit into the game .. that way you may as well render something else useless or obsolete ..

Well I mean it was like that in TA as well iirc, right? Tech two took a long *** time to build up.

People continue to use that argument. The thing is that ANY FACTORY in TA took a ****-ton of their economy if they were using their com or several cons to build it. T2 was only about 3 times more than T1 (or about 1800 metal in terms of PA). Our T2 is 4800 metal, or eight times what a T1 factory costs. Incomparable.

In any case, people went T2 in TA 1v1s. Apparently the primary way to close out TA 1v1 games is mass T2 bombers.

But bringing TA out in any argument over whether it's okay to be unable to use half of the unit roster in a 1v1 is irrelevant because in TA you couldn't use over half the unit roster in any mode. TA was a well designed game (or a game where the designers just got lucky) but it was far from a well balanced game.

Oh! It's the PA fan club hitting on Mike! I'll bite >

CDRKF I've played in 1v1 games where nuclear weapons were a serious threat and every working unit in the roster was used. Every. Single. One.

In that same game, we fought over the entire planet constantly, after a slow buildup period to establish territory and initial proxy bases.

That balance has been gone for over a year now. We have yet to return to the gameplay quality of that era, even in FFAs. Denying this is just wishful thinking. The current balance is more akin to a MOBA than to an RTS in a solar system.

KNight has worked on extensive, well-researched balance overhauls in at least two separate RTS games, one of which is among the most popular (if not THE most popular) balance mods in FAF to date. You should probably stop blowing his comments out of proportion and trying to punt his legitimate opinion. It makes for good television and great popcorn fodder, but a terrible argument.

As I said in a later post, this thread was not created as a 'lets dissect the balance, and throw it in Uber's face'. I was more annoyed that @KNight (who I haven't seen on the forum in some time) decided to show up and start up a balance discussion in a thread that is *nothing to do with balance*.

What actually has happened is there is a thread which was predominantly positive towards PA / Uber and therefore the usual suspects have come in to prove a point *yet again*. You guys don't like the balance direction Uber took. We get it. The point has been made over and over and over again. It's not the time or place to make it, and honestly I doubt Uber are going to change (nor should they frankly, just because they were initially Kickstarter funded doesn't mean that we as backers have any rights to dictate to them how to do their jobs, and also remember that many people may not agree with you).

As for @knights prowess in making balance mods, well lets see him make something worthwhile for PA (I know for certain that won't happen). I have a lot more time for guys like @stuart98 and such who, despite having their reservations, actually do something that's constructive (e.g. the excellent GA mod).

With respect to the TA argument, I think your have to bear in mind that rather than T2 in PA be comparatively more expensive (given the abundance of metal I think it's effective cheaper), is the fact that T1 in TA was comparatively more. In PA the t1 factories as *very* cheap- which promotes having more of them (quite nice in a lot of respects as you can mix and match between them more easily, in TA you chose *1* factory and that was it for most of the game, and that initial choice could determine if you win / lose depending on what your opponent decides to do).

Also as a Pro clan member and *long time* TA 1 v 1 player (back when the game was still fairly new), trust me when I say most 1 v 1 games in TA *never got to T2*. 1 v 1 was always a t1 focused game, and I don't think I ever saw it ended with mass t2 bombers? If your opponent got t2 air it would invariably be finished with hawk spam over bombers. Maybe the meta changed after I left, although as I played TA online from around 98 to 2001 I'd be surprised as the community had pretty much died down by that point and moved on (I personally went to Spring RTS in around 2002). I maintain with good players going T2 would be punished with a hard t1 push.

1 thing I do agree with you on, TA wasn't the epitome of perfect balance, and yet it has endured for decades. I think that is a key point- PA doesn't need to be perfect.

You should probably stop blowing MY comments out of proportion and trying to punt his legitimate opinion. It makes for good television and great popcorn fodder, but a terrible argument.
Face the argument, please. I don't like shooting people in the back.

Yes you said that already. I stand by my point- why was anyone in this thread commenting about balance?

As @squishypon3 said, like old times, the community can't resist starting an argument. An argument I would add that I *didn't start and had no interest in starting*.

@cwarner7264 I'm trying my best to be civil here however it appears a few people are *determined* to start another flame war. Time to close the thread?

If you don't want a flame war, why are you flaming KNight?

@cdrkf @mered4 @stuart98 @KNight

I don't think anyone's really flaming anyone, just simple misinterpretations of opinion, nobody (CDRKF) is intending to change what someone (Knight) said.

Can't we all just settle down and agree that people have different opinions on how the game should be balanced, that to some people most units not being viable in 1v1 isn't a silly thing, and maybe even that the game wasn't intended for 1v1, and so that's just how the meta works.

An example of other games with not everything being viable in smaller player counts than the game intended:

In Tf2 there are multiple competive formats, one is 6v6- or 6s, 6s are composed of two scouts, two soldiers, a demoman, and a medic. That cuts out a large magority of the other classes, almost two thirds that is, playing the other classes is called "off classing" and is only used in dire situations like switching to heavy in order to protect the final point.

Then there is highlander with 9v9 player count, with this competive format we see one of each class, arguably the player count the game was intended to be played as.

Maybe PA is just the same? Maybe the game is intended for 2v2, 3v3, etc.. And because of that 1v1 is played differently and has an entirely different meta, maybe that's not a bad thing? Maybe that's how it should be?

Just wanted to bring up some points to why I think it's okay to have unit become obselete, and a meta formed. I feel like nearly every game will work like this with having a below intended player count.

Please do that in another thread.
Uber certainly managed to achieve something with PA. It's certainly not perfect either and there is probably a lot of totally valid criticism possible, but this thread is not meant to be a place to discuss any of that, it has all been discussed before anyway. So let's just keep it at that and stop these childish arguments. It has all been said before. We all know each others opinion, don't we?

Misquote? =o

Why?

Nevermind, just seemed you meant to quote someone else, my mistake! XP

*slithers off and away from the thread*

Well said

I can't help but like these now because of your profile pic xD.

i soooo just hate it in that context ... D:<