The Leveler

How can you be so stubborn? I already proved to you that this isn't the case.

That's too easy to answer. So I'll just let you use your imagination.
jk

No seriously, just imagine what galactic war will be like. Do you really think that it will be fun if there is no progression anymore after the first 10-20 minutes? In games that will take like forever to be played out? Really? So you think that it would still be fun? For how long? Maybe a week. Maybe two. But then I'd get bored and turn to other games quickly. That's just how I see it. If every unit will be accessible after the first 20 minutes, then it's nothing special to see the really big units anymore. That means that I've probably seen it all after the first couple of games, and that it will get repetitive soon.

Sometimes the end goal isn't enough. The way of getting there is important, too. And btw upgrading your stuff is strategy too. It isn't not strategy just because you claim so. It requires you to think ahead and consider what your enemies are doing, because of the ressource investment you make. Btw that is true with all investments. Basically, building an energy plant is part of a strategy, too.

And like I said, I'm ok with units having specialized roles. So let's stop talking about that already.

First of all, the galactic war isn't a single game. It is a campaign map where each system is a single discrete PA match. You are starting each match with just commander(s), and build up from there.

Arachnis, you want upgrade progression. You want unit A to be early game, for 1 utile per cost. And unit B to be midgame, for 2 utiles per cost. And lategame unit C for 3 utiles per cost. This is bad.

A flat balanced system has all units with the same "utility" per cost. Of course 'utility' is a very fuzzy concept, but the point is you never switch over to making something that is strictly superior to another unit in every way.

Instead of switching from early game roster to midgame roster to lategame roster, you begin with a set of units that you use in the early game, and over the course of the game your roster expands. This means incorporating more specialized units, larger units, and any other type of unit you care to describe. However at no point does any unit become strictly obsolete. You might decide for strategic reasons that investment in a particular unit at that time is unwise and stop building it. But at a later time, circumstances may have changed and you decide that unit is now a good investment again.

Under an upgrade regime you will never build the obsolete units once the upgraded units are available, for any reason. Any resources spent on the obsolete units would always be better spent on the upgraded ones. This means your effective unit roster is smaller.


Progression for its own sake has become a staple of subscription and F2P games because of the Skinner box effect of making people addicted to the game's reward system. It doesn't make sense to have such a system in a serious RTS game. Especially since both sides will be upgrading their units, the effects simply cancel out.

On the other hand, diversity is critical to being an RTS game because it allows players to use different tools in different ways. Diversity makes each game novel, and allows players to craft their own distinct play style. Diversity of options and diversity of board states contribute far more to the player's strategic options than the one option "to upgrade now, or delay upgrading."

Even if your "upgrade strategy" performs flawlessly, all you get is a strict advantage of having stronger and more efficient units. Is that really a strategic or tactical victory? Or is that just A-moving with a more efficient, more powerful group of upgraded units fighting against strictly inferior opposition. Even when that "strategy" works it is boring. And calling it a "strategy" is being very generous with the word, since the decision to build tech is really a single decision; more of a gambit than a complete strategy.

Sorry I didn't read your full post (will do that now), but let me just answer to this:

I already explained why I think that progression is necessary, so let's not talk about that.
Instead I'll make an example:

Take unit A:

The Ant.

Unit B:

A Megabot, considered a super-weapon.
It has more health, more weapon damage, more range, more everything.
You can even build a nuke on that thing, whatever... let's say you can build three nukes.

It is superior to the ant in every way.
Let's say it's very high up the tier system.
Let's say that it costs as much as a thousand ants.

Now let's say it would die to a thousand ants if fighting alone. But that including that thing in your army and to draw fire away from it, while letting it do it's work, will increase your cost efficiency exponentially to what you invested in ressources. Now can you explain me on (assuming that there would be only ants and that megabot) how the ant got obsolete in this example?

This is called a glass-cannon. It's a way of making both, the basic and higher tier units, viable in the lategame.
Where is the problem of having that particular megabot require a T3 or even T4 factory to being built? I don't see one.

And I already said that I'm ok with balancing the Leveler, which is obviously needed.

1000 ants are very difficult to get all into range, which leads to kitting from the mega bot, that weakens the group of 1000 ants reducing their fire-power.

Any damage the megabot takes does not reduce its fire-power.

So unless your megabot always spawns on-top of enemys, it is far superior to 1000 ants. Why ever would you build 1000 ants for a job, when you can build a megabot?

I think you are not understanding the idea of utility per cost.

If we have a megabot that has, say, three times more HP, DPS, range, etc. but costs 1000x as much as an Ant, its utility per cost would be terrible. That would be an extremely weak unit. Even if its stats were thirty times higher, it would still be a terribly weak unit. Never build this unit, ever.

But if you have a unit like the Ant, but with three times the stats but for only two times the cost, then you have an incredibly superior unit that is a tremendous upgrade, and strictly superior to the Ant. Never build the Ant if you have the option to build this unit.

The absolute stats do not matter at all. Its strength per cost is the only feature that matters. You can flat balance units with widely different absolute stats, as long as they have costs and weaknesses to suit them.

The mechanic I am arguing against is having strictly upgraded units (higher utility per cost) become available after a large upfront investment.

And, as igncom indicated before me, multiplying a unit's stats by a constant has a HUGE multiplicative effect on its strength/utility. Doubling its damage and HP increases the unit's strength MASSIVELY, by many times more than just doubling it. Range has an even stronger, even exponential effect. The megabot with (seriously) one thousand times the stats is MASSIVELY stronger than one thousand units whose individual HP and damage adds up to its equal. Many orders of magnitude stronger, and it would need to be much, much more expensive than the quantity of tanks that add up to its HP and damage.

Read again.

It is assumed that it dies to a thousand ants if fighting alone. I didn't even go into details.
You guys can't tell me that you never heard the word glass-cannon?

The ant clearly didn't get obsolete.

I rest my case.

You apparently do not know what a glass cannon is. A glass cannon is a fragile unit with very high DPS, like a Peewee or a Glaive.

The unit you describe is more akin to a Krogoth than a glass cannon. Ye gods, it costs a thousand times more than an Ant and carries "a couple nukes" according to your description.

The entire point is that it depends on the units' stats and costs, and you failed to specify anything that would suggest this hypothetical megabot was either a durable low-DPS unit, or a fragile high-DPS 'glass cannon.' The natural assumption is that it is a multiplied extrapolation on the unit you are comparing it to 1000 of; the Ant.

Furthermore, 'it is assumed that it dies to a thousand ants' is a uselessly anecdotal data point. True, you didn't go into any details. And that is why nobody bothered to discuss your woefully inadequate and incorrect analysis of this 'Megabot as glass cannon.'

Only because you said it didn't, your example is severaly lacking in important information that is needed to be actually convincing.

Mike

It doesn't matter how it "feels" to you. If it dies to an army consisting of only basic units that has the same cost as the megabot, then the megabot is a glass cannon (or terribly underpowered). It's just a basic example, you can change around stuff you want. It didn't have to have those nukes, it's just a thoughtplay. I never said anything about how many hit points it has, either. Don't imply more into what I said than I actually said.

I don't even have to go into details to elaborate my point. (and I shouldn't, because the devs are better suited for that) And accusing me won't change that.

That isn't what a glass cannon is.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GlassCannon

Taking on X amount of units that happen to have the same cost doesn't make sense without the situation, because most situations don't make sense towards your argument.

And that is TOTALLY IGNORING how you happen to get all of those units into range without the mega unit shooting at them before they are all in position.

Theory crafting doest mean it works practically.

First of all, we are talking about a unit that costs one thousand times more than an Ant? As in, it takes one thousand Ants to kill it? And you say it is a glass cannon? I think you are very seriously confused about what 'glass cannon' means.

Moving past that, you are completely wrong. Just because it loses to something of equal cost does not make it weak at all, much less 'terribly underpowered.' Despite the fact that it is a ridiculous unit to begin with, if it really was one thousand times more expensive and lost to about one thousand Ants, then that would be pretty fair flat balancing.

Well, I guess that's the end of that, then. If you want to bring up an example and then refuse to provide any actual information about it, then your example ends up lacking a certain amount of substance and usefulness.

I didn't consider any particular situations and I didn't want to. The example should stay simple.

It could even die to 500 ants if fighting alone, if that is more glass cannon-ish to you. It doesn't change anything. And I never excluded that possibility. You just need to read more carefully.

Again, the example stands for itself. You don't need more information than that.
I don't know why that is so difficult?

Glass cannons have a low amount of HP. Being able to survive fire from several hundred Ants, such that you need 500 Ants to kill, it is still not a glass cannon.

Still, perhaps the above example is obscuring rather than helping the issue. So I shall propose a new one.

Suppose we have the Ant that we are familiar with. And then we have a Tough Ant that has twice the HP but is otherwise identical, as well as a Power Ant that has twice the damage but is otherwise identical. And then finally we have a Super Ant, which has twice of both HP and damage.

The question is, who would assign which unit to which factory, and how much would they cost?

I believe that the basic factory should have generalist units, regardless of cost. This means the basic vehicle factory would have the Ant and the Super Ant. The Ant would be considerably cheaper, of course. The Super Ant would probably need to be about four, five, six times more expensive (perhaps more) to justify double the stats in two areas. Obviously final costs are subject to testing, tweaking, and iteration, and I am just throwing out numbers.

Then, the advanced factory would have the specialist units. In this case the advanced factory would have the Tough Ant and the Power Ant, for approximately twice the cost of the Ant each, perhaps a bit more each, and my intuition is that the Tough Ant will need to be more expensive than the Power Ant because HP should be more expensive than damage.

So, arachnis, where would you put these four units? And how much would they cost?

I suspect you would put the Ant in the basic factory, and the Super Ant in the advanced factory, and that your Super Ant would be cheaper than its double HP and damage deserves. The result is a strictly superior, upgraded Ant which can only be accessed after an advanced vehicle factory has been constructed.

So you just want to skip my post? Sry but then this isn't worth my time. I don't see what's not understandable about it.

That's all you need. In that example you need to draw fire away from it. And given that there are only ants and the megabot in that example, the right answer is to use the ants to draw fire away from it. The ant didn't become obsolete.

Whether or not the Ant is obsolete depends on a comparison of the strength and cost of the units. This cannot be determined in your example since you didn't supply the necessary information.

You cannot get away from this deficiency by saying "you can just use the Ants to draw fire." If the Ant is numerically an inferior unit, you won't want to use it to draw fire because you shouldn't be building it. You should be building the objectively superior unit, and using that to draw fire.

But why should you only build the superior unit, when the same or less ressources spend in basic units will beat it?

You need a good unit composition to make it cost efficient.

So let me get this straight. You are advocating for 'upgraded' units at higher tech levels.

But those upgraded units actually lose to an equivalent cost in lower tech units. As in, they are less cost-efficient due to their increased size, strength, and special capabilities. And in fact they can be defeated by lower-tech units, even with a smaller investment in those basic units. But if you use those specialized units correctly, you can get extra capabilities to add to an army of basic units? Advanced capabilities that basic units don't have, even though you are paying a premium for those special features?

I think my work here is done.

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying (although you formulated it a bit weirdly, or maybe that's sarcasm). And I don't know where the problem is of having those units available at higher tiers, in that you need time to progress to them.

I'm still advocating a tiered system. Just differently from what you know from SupCom.
And I'm only talking about units here, I don't care if T1 mexes or energy plants become obsolete. Because I just think that having exponential economy is more important than preventing ressource generating structures from becoming obsolete.

PA doesn't have an exponential economy. It has a really stupid overpowered T2 economy, but it's not exponential.

It's like they looked at TA and said, " How can we take away Metal Makers while still holding on to all the things that made TA's economic model bad? "
Answer: " Boost the T2 economic structures to ludicrous levels. "

+1 for T2/T3 or "advanced" bots/tanks/bombers

If you attack it's not only DPS which counts if you want to break a defense - it is more like (DPS in firing range * time) . Think of it like the same DPS in a large blob will never deliver the same "punch" than a small blob of a few high DPS units with good armor because the large blob only slowly moves into range. Not all units can fire from the beginning so the low "DPS in firing range" limits the ants because they will never concentrate in one point (if you do not cheat with the flow field like in sup com 2) .

So if you can build defenses you need "advanced" units to break them. If you have small choke points advanced units are the units to use. If you go for a snipe get advanced units near to the commader. You have to fear them! I don't think advanced tanks/bots need much more specalization than that - that IS their special feature! They are the late game buker busters.