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

It needs to be identified that while low health allows range to become all powerful, high health makes range obsolete.

I would disagree that experimental builds shouldn't be broadcast. I enjoy seeing how the game is developed, and what gets tried out and ultimately accepted/rejected.

And I am able to read the giant "experimental" word and deduce that this means the build is not final, unlike others...

In the current setup this is true, because by necessity the current range differences are small. The idea though is to allow a much wider range (pardon the pun) of values to be available, so the scope for units with different ranged weapons would be greater, opening up many new unit roles that aren't possible in the current balance ethos.

High health wouldn't make range obsolete by necessity, in fact it would allow for weapons to have greater variation in power. When everything dies in three to four hits to most weapons, range is the predominant deciding factor. If things can stick around a little longer, there's much more room to differentiate units via more nuanced rate of fire/accuracy/overall damage/range combos. This would make artillery reasonably stronger than unit fire, or make something with the fearsome relative strength of an annihilator. I would like to see the play slowed down just a bit in this regard to add a bit more depth to the game (although the current meta is decently fun to watch).

I have to strongly agree about the health thing and wanted to add one more point:
Originally the idea (as I understood it) was to make a game about massive armies fighting massive battles across a whole solar system/galaxy. But due to turrets being overpowered and so on we actually have a game about building massive bases and sniping commanders using small strike forces (right now..I expect this to change ofc.).

In conjunction with the low unit health this makes the unit play feel kind of awful at times. Ground units such as bots are simply vaporized in seconds, tanks are slow but die in an instant (feels completely weird) and air often simply vanishes because of one misclick (magic ! well..that one is also due to the lack of wreckage from air).

Edit: And another thing:

DON'T STOP STREAMING OR I WILL TRAVEL BACK IN TIME AND KILL MYSELF BEFORE I CAN PURCHASE THIS

Well we are on version like six thousand and something right?

Its always going to be crazy when you have like 10 new internal builds a day.

This is interesting... It might sound crazy and cultured, but I think that by saying that these balance changes are "wrong" or "right" is a way of feedback. If I ever said something like this (I'm pretty sure I did) I never meant it in a "are you stupid, you're breaking the game" kind of way but in a "I think that's the wrong direction" kind of way.

Anyway here's my suggestion - I don't think the grenadier bots are the right idea: they seem wonky and strange. I would however suggest the making T1 tank fire is a slight arc, much like pelters used to, to reduce the usefulness of walls against T1. As for bots. Rather than "grenades" which seem to give them a hard time fighting other units I would suggest an ability to circumvent walls either by jumping over or digging under. This would also create 2 unique ways T1 can raid and 2 unique ways walls interact with t1: against bots they are a shield, but not a movement obstacle, while against tanks they are a movement obstacle but not a shield.

But the Internal builds have little to do with changes in balance or gameplay. It's just that every time anything, even a comma or a comment, has been added or modified, there you have a new build. With several people working on the code and the look of the game simultaneously, obviously the full package proceed at the pace of several builds a day.

Including balance changes.

It has everything to do with balance and gameplay changes.

Even syntax changes.

All I can say is, I love the streams, please continue to do so... I also have my problems with some changes, but I like experimental builds, it is interesting to see what is going to happen... and where it might lead to.
I am following the game since Kickstarter, why not wanting experimental stuff streamed? I think that is awesome from Uber and Meta to do so... even if it does not make it into the game... opens up new ideas and perspectives...

Brian, please keep doing what you are doing, your summaries are always great! I enjoy the streams and your posts.

So guys, don't fight! Lets get this game rockin!

Hmm I kinda like the changes seen in the experimental builds.
But it looks like the next update to the game could potentially change the entire game in a big way.
People never like change

Personally I would prefer smaller changes over a faster time and see how the actual player base responds to those.
My opinion has always been that a small change like adding T1 arty that slightly outranges turrets already has the potential to change the entire early game.

But I must changing the Anchor ro DOT rather than damage, sparked my interest. And it certainly looked awesome.

Changes this big can't be done slowly. Gotta go all in and change everything or they won't work.

I'm a firm believer that everything is possible

But seriously,
its not like next patch is suddenly going to be perfectly balanced.
With big changes there is always a bigger chance the balance meter goes completely to the other side
(nukes or turrets becoming useless for example)
Balancing (anti)nuke and air could be done in different steps for example

But it is gamma so they can get away with it without me complaining about it

about the granadier,
you can also make the ant a little bit more like artillery instead of the Dox. This would make the Ant more able to attack bases and the Dox more direct fire to raid armies.

Yupp. It's an iterative process.

Gotta go too far in one direction to see how far is too far, so they can then bring it back and find the middle ground.

I just don't like how the high cost of advanced creates two extremely distinct tiers and makes recovery nigh impossible due to the high costs.

I'd rather the two tiers get brought to very close in costs. That'll make all units valid, recovery viable, and reduce the importance of the timing of stepping up to advanced.

I'm with brian on this one. Make T2 stronger but not godlike when comparing with T1 and both tiers will see use. Make both of them valid options for diferent strategies and the game will be awesome.

Yeah, fyi Meta, my opinion is too that these streams have at least a 95% popularity rating with the guys around here.

Even if it caused random debate about incorrect details, that will get straightened out when it doesn't actually go into the patch and discussion on it looks stupid from hindsight.

The streams are pretty boss, and I can't wait until the launcher lets us play new builds while keeping old. Those streams showcase this game enough, will be even more awesome when interactive where viewers can go into their launcher and play the new build while they watch.

Anyway, whatever update is coming, we should play it, then complain. Really, t2 startup is something that can still be done via stall, then you can just throw up some t2 extractors and catch up. Catchup can still be done and theoretically establishing extensive t2 will be easier so if one dumps in to do it then it makes comebacks from someone who t2s later possibly easier. THEN, while there are less t2 units in play, someone using t2 construction assisted by t1 army can compete with small scale t2, again weakening t2 and strengthen comebacks.

So, unless one of us are proven wrong, it becomes a 18 page debate. We should just play the game. Afterwards, we can change anything we want. When multibuild launcher comes out, they could push 2 conflicting balance builds (expensive t2 and cheap t2) to see which one is more popular, and perhaps not use the numbers directly but research the reason the players like it (because the reason might be bad or might be better added differently).

Fun idea: Make a thread, where people vote on the versons, and another thread where people can sign up to be responsible to testing and commenting on a version (and balancing that thread where equal numbers test both builds, even though signers can play both builds they are supposed to comment on their assigned one).

I'd be very disappointed if the streams would stop because the community can't keep itself in check. It's one very important way for me to keep up with the latest changes.