Internal Playtest – Unit Balance Changes, Econ Changes, Combat vs Turrets, Nav Fixes

Since we're all for doing wild experimental balance changes, how about in the next one you:

• Make T2 mexes give 7 metal
• Make adv factories cost only ~20% more than their T1 counterparts
• Rebalance cost/ability of adv units to be nearly on par with T1
• Leave other T2 structure costs about the same (relatively expensive now)

Now you decide to go to T2 when you need one of their specialist units (like artillery or snipers), instead of doing it for the absurd metal income boost. T2 and T1 can easily be spammed together in harmony because T2 has been made less powerful, and the more interesting units can hit the field earlier. Building more powerful structures like nukes/holkins/etc requires holding more metal spots, but since they're all over the place this is hardly an issue, and once you have control over an entire planet's resources, almost a non-issue.

You don't know how well your experiment is working unless you compare it to going the alternative direction.

Can't believe... ...so... tactful!!!

I support these changes.

Been advocating for these.

Although I like the idea of Advanced Metal Extractors producing 14 metal instead of 7.

Can I like this twice?

I like the orbital changes by the way. Suddenly I might start anchor spam more....

I kind of like these changes...
Although I think the whole numerics in the economy were bad to begin with, the percentage increases for cost and production for each tier seem more viable in these experimental builds. It SHOULD be that the opportunity cost of 'rushing' t2 versus going all out t1 is more equal. It currently seems like whoever spends the same amount of resources rushing t2 as their oppoent builds t1 units, the t2 rush is waaay more viable, especially since tower+turtle strategies will wipe out any early t1 assaults.

But seriously, the dox should be renamed pee-wee with a super-high rate of fire
I wonder where I got this idea from...

A few months ago, they made t1 much cheaper so we can spam them in a higher quantity. To reduce the stress on the server, they reduced the rate of fire. That was an comprehensible change.

You have to understand that it's plain better to try stuff out rather than theorize whether it'll work. Uber's simply hesitant to walk down one (largely beaten) path and never look back. keep their options open.

They've drastically changed the entire playing field now, like, twice before? If it's that pressing they can do it again. Unlike many other developers i've seen, Uber's one of the few that's actually willing to go that extra mile and respond to problems.

I do think you're getting way too much flak for your ideas, i understand your position and share the concerns.







I feel like losing the dox and getting a grenadier is a shame. I think it's better to indeed have it a separate unit.

And I'm fine with them changing the playing field. I was on the front lines getting them to change orbital. One of my threads largely contributed to that.

I completely understand the concept of trying things – I have stated so quite a few times.

Previously, they always seemed to be very engaging with discussion. Now they seem to just stiff arm it.

Not sure why the shift. It started before these econ changes.

I agree. The dox was a great unit. Separate unit would be ideal.

They're changing the dox to counter the broken defensive towers. It's a shame. Fix the towers, not the excellent and popular unit.

probably because of Release. Neutrino's barely been on lately, which is usually a sign that big stuff is going down.

It's clear Uber wants the game released in the very near future and i simply think they don't really have the time or energy to discuss it. Seeing Garat et all's replies to this thread, it seems they are very aware of these issues and struggling with it themselves. However, as it's their collective, well, baby, i understand if that means they don't want pre-cut balance like all other games, and would rather try a fresher and different approach.

There's a difference between not having time to talk with the community and being hostile towards the community.

And I would say that many of the words from Uber has been hostile towards the community.

I fully support the recent push to try radical, outside the box balance. I think PA has hit some sweet spots but you have got to really push hard to find the sweet spot as we are not yet there and serious problems remain. Further you've got to do it even though this community is going to keep freaking out. I think we as players have some good sense of where the faults lie (because we play so much, it's easy to know what isn't fun), but not a very clear picture of what will fix that. I think you are going to have to get it wrong before you can get it right. My only suggestion would be to consider being just as radical with your treatment of the orbital and interplanetary stage in general. There are some steps in this direction with the anchor being made to shoot down and the buff of the teleported. But go further. I would be so happy to see you just try something crazy like making a class of bot and vehicle that can go between planets. Just to see if this actually breaks the late game turtle fest up into something more dynamic.

I do hope you will continue streaming these experiments, but I understand if not. I think the community here is very young (it always is I suppose, except maybe in Eve), and people are very reactionary. Personally i'd be fine with you testing some wild and crazy builds right out in the open but with less preview so people can't form expectations. In the worst case you can revert to a more stable balance within a week. I really think it would help the process not only to test some crazy stuff internally, but to let a bit of it out in the wild to see what players do with it.

Brian, sheesh this is as dramatic as you can be. Uber is not 'hostile' towards the community. Please stop acting like the protector of the game. You are very reactionary and have lately been acting more and more like some kind of champion for us. We did discuss in a thread that some of Scathis' comments seemed to be a bit counter productive or at least imply he felt the community didn't understand the game well enough to contribute to balance. But that is a big step from being 'hostile'. This is now your third or fourth drama bomb thread - I hoped after the last one you would cool it off and get back to reporting the facts.

"And I'm fine with them changing the playing field. I was on the front lines getting them to change orbital. One of my threads largely contributed to that."

Stop. Your. Ego. Insanity. It's out of control. You run the FAQ thread and post updates about the game here and to your website. That's it. You are not a community leader and you don't speak for us. You need to seriously scale back your expectations of how much input and control you, as a single commentator and player, can have. You don't speak for us and you are not the driving force behind developing this game. Just step back and chill! It's seriously getting out of control.

I'd say call calling community members "pathetic" is considered hostile.

Ok now, let's stop with personal attacks and prevent this forum to become like blizzard forums, we are better than this.

I liked this comment but it is not enough as it is the best comment in this thread . This or something along these lines has to be tried (i would try at 35% instead of 20%, but why not try both right? ). I hope T1 can always be viable much like in TA; that game just did T1&T2 land units/battles right in my book. This game is so much faster than TA though so it is a bit of a different beast. I prefer a bit slower myself but that is a completely subjective thing. Continue with the experiments please, but also try scaling down as well as up, no?

You know, rate of fire and toughness is such a huge balance tool as well as cost. Bulldogs in TA could take a lot of damage but fired slowly where as the T1 tanks were the opposite so they pared well together. I am not sure i get the same feeling with PA. My gut instinct would be to pretty much make all units a certain percentage tougher and then play more with fire rates. That would likely makes battles last longer (could add more character to battles imo), but that might be my bias for a slower game coming through
Experiment, experiment, it is how we advanced as a species, can't be a bad idea

i don't really want to mess around in this soup, but i'd like to say that brian has -undeniably- been helpful and that his threads have sparked important discussions.

I'm not sure if calling that out is right or wrong. It's a matter of culture. anyway, more than one person can form the frontline and creating the right thread may be more important than the right post. EroticBurrito recently made a thread and it went supernova. Because he made the right thread at the right time.

Passion is something we all share, and while that does need the occasional reality-check, it's unnecessary to anvil someone's passion down. For uber, every "we like this" thread has 3 "we dont like this" thread and even if every unit became a unicorn, people would complain they're the wrong shade or the horn length is off. that can be frustrating. they have perhaps more passion for this than we do, and having people piss down on your passion is mood-killing.





in the end, Uber is a company. While the community and the company can be friends, it'll never quite be the relationship you have with real friends. it means occasionally bringing bad news or changing the plan. that's reality.

Superouman's right. Stick to facts. No ad hominem.

Otherwise I'll start PMing you people and it won't be a nice message. It'll be polite.
And to the point.

Don't poison the forums with this. Consider your opponents argument. Seriously. You all were taught basic debate in high school.

Of course, I try to always point out that Brian has been and can continue to be an extremely valuable part of the community. I always feel torn between blocking him for these kind of situations and keeping him around for useful summaries of things. I've been trying to convince him that being dramatic and acting like he's the center of the PA universe isn't helping his cause or bettering the community. That message seems to be lost but it doesn't stop me from trying.

I'm not attacking anyone personally. I'm asking Brian to stop being dramatic and to cut it out with these needless drama threads. I think what really rubs me the wrong way is every time it's 'something I don't like is HURTING THE COMMUNITY' [which I speak for] so let me raise a bunch of drama'. If anything it's all the needless dramatics and hysterics that are destabilising the community. Given that Meta felt a need to threaten to stop posting videos, it's not ad hominem to ask Brian to cut it out with something he is - factually - doing. I didn't call him a poopy head

[shameless misquote ]