My balance concerns - Not really about balance but how it's done.

I hope financial constraints don't force their hand, they got over double their original kickstarter target. I think the problem will be time, not money. Personally I think that if the game isn't ready they should (and probably will) push back full release. Even if they fell behind by six months that would STILL be an amazing time-frame from funding to completion.

I guess that would work if they fund those extra 6 months with wishes and fairy dust instead of money.

That is also forgetting that via the stretch goals they are providing a lot more content for the game as well, As Neutrino said way back then, just because the stretchgoals came in 200,000 increments doesn't mean the features actually cost that much.

Mike

Second Kickstarter,
- Optimize for 5000 unit/planets so we get "scale".
- Dream UI that can truly leverage their ChronoCam tech.

I'd happily throw another $100 at them.
But I don't think other people would.

Faf is gash. The best way to run forged alliance is on Hamachi or on the lan. Plus as I keep reiterating the sorian 2.1.1 doesn't run on Faf and this is by far the best mod every created for gapowered kit.

why even less one of sorian?

I started out at 60, went to 90, now I'm past 250. I've run out of upgrade options. I believe in what they are doing and the directions they are going. Personally I wish they would allow us to give money in other ways as well.

Because it was a mod, and as I really don't care about AI...

But again, if you are able to explain me why 2.1.1 is better than whatever the version FAF is running, it's trivial to change.

But this has nothing to do with these forum, so move to the FAF one.

I thought the same about the start. You should maybe start with enough metal and power to marginally build a factory as a tactical equal and pros vs cons, versus building at least a Mex and power to build more steadily earlier.

Considering they could balance metal itself better, this is time wasted to balance right now. They just got to rework it when they rework metal itself. More metal from t1 mex, more cost for t2 mex, then balance commander start to be able to build factory right off the bat or build mex then pump factory faster.

And this is short sighted of me, but everyone forgot the egg. You are supposed to have a starting benefits of some kind. So less like faf more like spring.

getting back to the original question, my answer would be:
I hope they listen to all and none.
Given, that each player type has certain preferences and possible input on the question of balance it would narrow the focus too much if concentrating on just on group, may it be the casual or pro faction or whatever grouping one might think of. Also, considering the comments made here or in discussions on ladder stuff it becomes obvious that the perfect game for one group doesn't necessarily mean the perfect game for any other group.

That's the reason I actually prefer if the game devs choose a consisting line in balancing for themselves, using the the input from all sides just as rough input, otherwise you end up with an inconsistent mess. If you start giving the community to direct control or at least the impression of too much influence, the way from patch to patch isn't fun for devs and players alike (probably though for different reasons )


As a side note, being good at a game doesn't necessarily make you good at giving constructive suggestions for improvements and vice versa.

Hear hear.

If you read my post, that's exactly what I'm saying in a more detailed manner

While i haven't read every post in this topic, i'd just like to vent some of my thoughts regarding this game.

I like the concept, and i enjoy the execution in its current stage very much (i'm no competitive RTS player, i play for fun with friends). That said, IF the game should end up in a bad state balance-wise at launch, modding is a valid option, and in my opinion the biggest strength this game has. If they can keep the game modular enough for players to change the majority of things around, it'll still have hopes of being a competitive (albeit niched) title for RTS-players who want a "modern" Total Annihilation-like game.

Unless Uber is offering servers for mod, as well as a matchmaker,.. it's not an option.

It would make little sense from a design perspective to exclude modding from dedicated servers, given that the architecture should be designed in such a way that the structure is virtually identical on both client and server.

Matchmaking however, i'll agree with. I suppose the "workaround" there would be an external matchmaking system for a given mod. Not exactly the most convenient solution, but very much possible.

if you don't care about AI then you don't care about strategy. And forged alliance is relevant as its obvious that most alpha testers would like to see many aspects from FA in PA, mostly scale. I know that many of your users don't have the hardware for big battles with AI on. I am not suggesting that AI are a substitute for seasoned veterans, however the inclusion of AI in a game of people v people makes for far more involved game play. And weeds out any ****** rushers.

An AI will never be better than an average noob, how well coded it could be.

One fun thing I've did in FAF was to create a trueskill rating for AIs to get their average level. It's not great.

Don't get me wrong, AI is an important part of any game, people like to play coop against AI.
But it should never be considered as a way to balance a game.

timevans999 do you have a point related to this thread?

As far as I can tell you think the only relevant balance feedback comes from games in which many AIs are spawned alongside the players. Otherwise the game has no strategy (we should spend the next few pages defining strategy) and everyone will just 'gayboy' rush (lets spend some time pointlessly defining this too!).

thepilot, you don't even have to put a limit on the power of an AI. Assume an AI is as good as a veteran player. If you spawn one alongside many people trying to play a 1v1 then you suddenly have a FFA, not a 1v1. FFA dynamics are very different to 1v1 dynamics as in FFA you often want to play passively while your opponents fight amongst themselves.

Now I have the sinking feeling that this was more of a waste of time than I intended. I don't want to talk about anything related to the statement "if you don't care about AI then you don't care about strategy" and certainly not with anyone who uses '******' as an adjective to describe something in an RTS.

If you're only playing with the ai your input is not relevant to balance discussions.

OT: I strongly believe the top players should have an important part in balancing. They have a far better understanding of the game, the mechanics and the current meta strategies.