Internal Playtest – Balance Build, Social Features Reveal, and More! – 4/4

That is a nice subtle swathe of changes

I say I like a lot of the upcoming changes very frequently. In most of my posts about the upcoming changes as a matter of fact.

I just really don't like the advanced/economy changes. They amplify the snowballing and make recovery very difficult if not impossible. Yes, that is theory crafting – but since we already run into snowballing and difficulty recovering in the current build, I theory craft that increasing the gap between basic and advanced will be only make things worse.

If you get your advanced factory 90% done and have it sniped by your opponent because he got his advanced factory done 30 seconds before you and used the assisted gunships, there's no chance at recovering.

Using gunships (or anything for that matter) to snipe my opponent's first advanced factory is my favorite tactic since there's practically no way to recover from it.

I also don't like losing the dox. It's my favorite Basic unit. :-(

I'm very interested in playing with these changes. I am sure you know what you are doing, the changes look good (and well thought off) and I really like the changes on the turrets in stead of better turret simply is more firepower.
I'm also glad that you keep your own opinion and not listen to all the negatives around. You are shooting for awesome and I believe it will be awesome!!

If for example a T2 mex will cost 4 times more, and generate 4 times more, won't building one take the same amount of time as building 4 mexes are now taking, and won't it generate the exact same amount as 4 mexes do now? So basically nothing will change. You will have the same amount of metal in the same amount of time.

The only thing that changes is your income limt, which has quadrupled. Potentially you could get 4 times the metal with the same amount of metal spots. But I don't know if games will always reach the point where every metal spot has a T2 mex on it.

On the other hand, that also means that there will be more ressource income for players in games where there are many players on one small planet, which will make 10 player FFAs more interesting.

t1 prices stay the same afaik. So t1 is buffed x4 in relation to t2 and one might try to spam t1 units from t2 economy in some situations.

EVERYBODY is supporting him in that, offering constructive criticism. Please. It's a meaningless statement.

People are doing exactly what this forum is intended for - discussion.

Meta mentioned something about the visual cue for indicating the Uber cannon was ready to fire was something you guys weren't sure about, have you thought of animating the cursor icon? I think a really simple way would be to have it gray out right after a shot's been fired, then slowly refill with color out from the center until it is completely full again, indicating it's ready to fire. Maybe there could be a subtle pop or flash when it's completely full to make it extra clear or something.

I really like that.

That way I know if the Uber cannon is ready to fire even if I'm zoomed out to the strategic icon level.

while i agree that snowballing can be an issue, i personally believe that it is, in fact, an indirect result of a little something called Tunnel-Vision.

basically, IF you focus on one enemy for too long, your other enemy will snowball in power, while you are not looking.

addressing snowballing to that degree would require some pretty drastic balance changes. like, for instance, a T1 unit that can go toe-to-toe with a T2 unit, pure DPS-wise. this is where i see the Boom coming into its own. a quick, single-use bomb that can quickly cut a chunk out of a T2 blob with sheer speed (and likely sufficient numbers). in that regard however, they would need to be quick to produce, if they are not quick enough now.

No, it is an indirect result of something called a 3 player FFA. You shouldn't get involved in a 2 front war. If two opponents were to ally against you, you would be fighting an asymmetric battle against a snowballed opponent.

Yes, such balance should exist in the game, so that you can play in the suicide position with two enemies ganged up against you and have valid strategies available for you to use.

soo.... one should be able to win at any point in the match, regardless of their current situation?

would you have the match NEVER END?

there does need to be a point where you look at the situation at hand, and the only plausible answer is "That's it, I'm dead."

you're effectively wanting a way for any particular person to be able to win a 2v1 (unless i am indeed mistaken). Average Joe Schmoe can't really do that( at leasr, not currently). especially if the 2 other Schmoes are both just as competent. you probably speak that position because you probably could prevail, if given the chance. sadly, the rest of us are not that snazzy.

and if they must intentionally ally against you, you probably gave them proper cause to do so. the random occurrence of being in two people's cross-hairs is sometimes unavoidable. though again, you probably gave them just cause. those causes being you are either too strong to tackle alone, or too weak to resist.

that's my take at least.

I completely agree.

But that point shouldn't be because I built an advanced factory at 10 minutes while my opponent built one at 9 minutes and 30 seconds.

There also should be options for players to recover from losing a few buildings.

Back like it was during early Beta.

Didn't FA do something similar in a balance mod with having to build tech factory's, unlocking the more mass producible clones?

Im not a fan of it personally.

But if they remove or heavily balance actual T2 units and the economy, then unlocking T2 could gain the player access to truly bizarre units and weapons. (Trying to be constructive).

Like, give the player all the tools in T1 (And I mean all the needed tools like anti-nukes, artillery, transports?) and then have T2 be the Pandora's box of 40th century war-fair.

Not better, bigger or more expensive units necessarily, but weapons of the future that don't fit with the maximised potential of the T1 infinite army.

Chrono tanks, M.A.D Tanks, Tesla tanks, Mind control tanks......just the works.

part of me doubts a whole 30 second margin would literally decide the match. this is PA, not StarCraft.

though i fully understand where you're coming from. having a tech advantage a good ammount of time sooner ca indeed swing things one way.

on the other hand, a crafty player could (potentially) build a force and push his way into the base and take out the T2 facs, swinging things back the other way. even if only temporarily, long enough for him to catch up.

Example: Schmoe A builds a T2 land factory (either one) X seconds sooner than Schmoe B. however, Schmoe B builds an T2 air fac, and sends in his air forces to knock out Schmoe A's T2 land facs. now Schmoe B has a leg up, because his T2 fac is still alive, and his air units can give those T2 landwalkers hell.

later down the road however, Schmoe A builds a T2 naval fac, and sends his boats to kill the T2 air fac, which just so happens to be within Leviathan range.

Correct. That's the point of the commander. He's an achilles heel that can be cut at any time.

I'm not saying there would not be a cut-off. Obviously there would be a cut-off. Some asymmetry is simply too much to deal with.

Here you go, this is a reiteration of my ideas in this thread:

https://forums.uberent.com/threads/economy-balancing-the-exponential-curve.58295/page-2

I once played a game versus the AI. 3 player FFA. Eastern AI attacked me in force, Western AI left me alone. I constantly scouted Western AI, but she wasn't doing anything to me, so I hit Eastern AI hard to get rid of him.

It turned out Western AI was busy attacking him from the north while I was busy attacking him from the south.

Eastern AI has no control over what me and Western AI do in a three player FFA. Eastern AI does, however, have control over what he does for himself.

So yes, I do believe that the game should offer sufficient depth that a player still has control when circumstances are not in their favour.


While I dont' play Sins multiplayer online, I do follow their community. And Sins would be a different game entirely if a player spawning in the suicide spot immediately said "That's it, I'm dead".

Then you must not play much.

In its current iteration, not even the proposed one, if someone is 30 seconds or a minute or two behind in stepping up to advanced, then that's game over.

If a player gets up an advanced factory first, then there isn't much his opponent can do about it.

Your scenario isn't very plausible even in the current balance, because the player who gets up the advanced economy first has a massive exponential growth. They then grow much faster than the other opponent and the player who gets up an advanced economy second has little hope of catching up.

30 seconds can make a difference, especially if the first player to get advanced goes air.

ok. i think i'm seeing it a little better now, thank you for clarifying.

there should definitely be a way out. but there should also be a dead end.

now we just need to figure out where those fall.

We definitely have units whose existence is meant to "level the playing field"

The T2 Bomber wipes out ground swarms with ease.

Any unit with AoE can deal with clusters (Shellers, Pelters, T2 Flak)

and more recently, the Inferno and Vanguard, which can add some much needed bulk to an otherwise smaller force.


however, we also have situations for which there is little to be done once they occur:

Catapults (and to a lesser extent, Holkins) - if you're being pelted by those, the only real solution is "go get them". Sadly, it's rare that they are left unguarded.

Fortified Moons - If the defense is thick enough, nothing short of a planet smash will do.

Inter-orbit nuke spam - we all know that some matches can devolve into good ol' Missile Command.

Vanguard Drop - The stuff of tournaments, but the only real counter is to expect it to happen. it's also only possible because of the way Astraeus drops work - Instantly.

i may update this bit if i can find more.

the upcoming update holds promise to address some of these (and perhaps some i did not think of).

if 30 seconds literally spells doom, then we do indeed have a game breaking problem on our hands... though i still have a hard time believing it. maybe that's the case with Top-Tier matches like you might play, but perhaps not so for the rest of us.

You're right, it is more of an issue with top tier players. But it is a big issues.

With the top tier players, the game used to be about who could raid the most effectively and defend properly against raids. That was back during the glory days of early beta.

But now matches are all about getting to Advanced first.

indeed. and these experimental playtests are seeing Uber trying to address the issue. simply delaying the aquisition of T2 might not be the ultimate solution, but it's a start. at least now they acknowledge that it's a problem.