Stream in about 1 hour: Balance games w/ Community

No, I don't think it needs to go that far. Certainly there are aspects of Zero-K Mentality that many like but I think can can still keep the Basic/Advanced Distinction but they need to get things closer to TA than SupCom in that regard.

Mike

agreed.

really, there is a benefit to tiers over zero k, the investment in a build path. That is improving too.

to humor you, the balance is one I suggest even in the tier system. You make t2 units rubbish in cost to power. You still produce them. Why? Because you need their role. You require vanguards for dropkills, shellers for turret snipe, Gil-e to thin armies along turret line support, you don't build them as standard army because you will lose the investment so easily and odds are against you getting their value out of the small quantity.

it is a good idea, just so is tiers. At the risk of sounding like a smart arse childish fool, here is the link to zero k, no need to develop it go on and enjoy, don't let us stop you. Come back in 2 years and id nearly promise by then its been ported here, see you then, still be here.

Tbh I imagine if you play no t2 mex with the balance patch it could be really interesting because t2 gets you access to the more efficient t2 power and access to the useful specialised t2 units that are now probably quite close to as cost efficient as t1, instead of overwhelmingly better.

Yeah, but for me I'd say we should along with that re-jigger all the numbers so that they aren't crazy huge just because it's an Advanced structure where-ever possible.

Mike

You'll all get the same notifications from this - I made the assumption that Raevn did. Sorry, my bad.

so, you too say this balance is better than last, not saying much. I think a game minus the t2 eco would also be good, and much closer than t1 only games to confirming balance in pa.

you played the balance patch, right? What's your opinion? T2 facts too much hp? Still too fast to t2? Should t2 be restricted by cost to increase t1 playtime?

sounds like you like the balance to me, except you feel t2 cost shouldn't be a return investment, it should cost you and you not get the eco back afterwards, and I agree.

I just find it hard to see that trying to solve the t2 problem by making t2 metal 350% better could ever solve any problems.

I think I would easily prefer 20 ants, or a t1 mix of 20 units to 1 Sheller. So that doesn't seem too balanced to me.

You do know before you playtest. The people who look at those numbers and "hypothesis" are not idiots.

It is very easy to look at the numbers, analyse them and predict the interactions between different units.

No, you can't predict player behaviour. And that should remain unpredictable, because it's a strategy game.

You can make estimates about how unit behaviour will affect player behaviour, and I agree, those will just be estimates until you can prove them.

Everyone repeat after me:

"Nanolathe was right"

Dawww, shucks.

What actually surprises me is that after (how long?) two years of development, we still have tiers that basically represent a mere upgrade of units.

So now in order for T2 to not invalidate T1 you have to slow it down.

Add variety and real differences in role to the units across tiers so that they complement each other (specialized unit) and the need to slow down T2 becomes less and less relevant.

Apart for that, creating such a spread between the two tiers, specially in matter of eco, makes even minor mistakes very critical, adding way more pressure to players. We saw it yesterday, but it was expected. How can you balance the game if as soon as one gets T2 his eco sky rockets? The higher the spread between the tiers, the more the gamble and bigger the reward if you win.

And I'm sure that that's not the way most of us would like to play a strategy game. A victory on a strategy game shouldn't be made out of a gamble.

I think the proposed numbers are too large, but as I have pointed out many times, sometimes strict upgrades can maintain roles. So long as you are benefiting from escorting the upgrades with lower tier units, and not wasting metal on units that could have been the upgraded unit.

I've barely had a chance to play but in essence from the stats it seems better, except that the t2 mex now mean that you can have a tiny base with 7 t2 mex that has the same metal income as someone with complete map control and 105 t1 metal.

They aren't necessarily a mere upgrade any more since t2 units are so much more expensive, t1 vs t2 units are probably pretty close to being a similar cost efficiency, perhaps in favour of t1 but with the t2 having specialised abilities like being able to take out turrets without losses. Isn't t2 specialisationwhat everyone wanted?

Yes, but my personal take on it is that while the T2 eco continues to be a direct upgrade from T1, there will always be a significant advantage to those who do favour T2 over T1. I really would like to see an experimental build in which they experiment with a few different flavours of specialised T2 eco.

Any of these, for example, and I can think of a plethora of other ways to make advanced economy add much more to gameplay than a simple upgrade could.

The dev game looked like so much fun. The units interacted really well with each other. So this part of gameplay seemed real nice.

The devs however didn't abuse or fully utilize the huge metal avalanche (tm marshall) the way most players would. Keep the values of t2 as they are and make the mex back to 28. Let's see how that works.

Or alternatively make t2 mex income 7 and double t2 units cost with the build we have now. God the fun I would have messing around with these figures.

Yes but your idea of what unit role is is quite limited.



My take on it - unit wise it is probably okish.

But Economically, it's ridiculous.


I actually quite like that balance as it stands now.
I view the game as having 4 components - you build economy, you advance tech, you build military, you build defences.

Advancing in Tech and benefiting economically negates one economic disadvantage of ceding map control to your opponent.

I don't think it should be as large a jump as it is in the proposed build.

About what?

I do not understand what you're saying, or what you're saying makes less sense than usual

If T2 is less efficient than T1, but with special abilities like taking out turrets without losses, it still invalidates T1. It's pretty obvious: why would you use more efficient(?) units that you will lose, when you can build less efficient but invincible units? Makes no sense.

The real deal would be having T2 units able to grant those special abilities to the pack (T1 and T2 alike), but not able to deliver massive damage just by themselves.

The Vanguard has special abilities on top of the Inferno (radar range?) and even if less cost efficient, once you get T2, the Inferno is history. Same goes for Hummingbird vs Peregrine, T1 tank vs T2 tank, as for the entire bot rack as well (so they had to screw the Dox). Same goes for turrets, where you build a single laser turret only if you're in a very rush. But for Turrets I like to have similar choices, that's an entire different thing than mobile units.

Anyway, the game is almost entirely based on direct upgrades plus some special abilities. No surprising it is so hard to balance.

But, again, the Dev had two years to put units and variety in it. Perhaps they could pause a moment and think if the problem we have now could be solved otherwise than changing metal prices and stats of units that are too similar across the two Tech Tiers.

We all beat the same drum

You shouldn't build one aspect at a time. You should build all of them at the same time. That's how it works. You build eco and factories to spend the metal on at the same time. Not in sequence. This isn't solitaire.

A T2 that is bumped UP instead of being brought more in line with t1 will encourage T2 usage over t1 at all points of the game.

(close enough)

Everything. Ever.

Wait - Actually valid feedback - Vehicles gained a massive speed boost. I think Bots should gain a speed boost so they can chase down Skitters.

And also naval. Naval speed comparable to Vehicles.


I think the speed values have to be balanced. a lot more than they are. If something has greater range, it has less speed, or has to stop to fire.

Let's use the Leveller as an example. I actually think the ratios in this patch are too high.

Say the ratios of Ants:Levellers are 9:1.

The Leveller does 500 damager per shot. 9 Ants do 378.
1 Leveller does 500 damage to one target. 9 Ants do 378 damage to 1 target. or 42 to 9. Etc.
9 Ants have 1125 health between them. 1 Leveller has 625.

Against units like the Sheller, which do a small amount of damage to many targets, you clearly want Levellers (which cost 1800 vs 2700). Against units like the Leveller, you want the same cost in Ants. Against units like the Ant, you either want more Ants, or the Sheller.

Which means when you have Levellers and Shellers in an army, you just want pure Levellers, correct? Enough to absorb shots from Shellers and deal with the Levellers and Shellers.

And how do you counter Levellers? Build more Ants. So now you have all 3 units in your army.

The difference between my proposed system, and the proposed balance build, is that currently Ants, Shellers and Levellers all have the same speed (10).

It's closer to achieving unit diversity. You can achieve that by changing metal prices and stats of units. Metal cost, health and damage are not the only statistics.

That's my two-cents anyway.

The Sheller should be slower than Levellers, which should be slower than Ants. Slow enough so the equivalent cost in Ants can kill 1 Leveller. Always.

Correct. But you cannot put 100% of your eco into all four at the same time. So it's a juggling act.

As for t2 being bumped up, read the top of this post. Or play Sins of a Solar Empire.

Advanced units can be 'bumped up'. Sins of a Solar Empire - Light Frigates vs Heavy Cruisers. Both have a similar role - they both absorb a lot of punishment while dealing out damage. The heavy cruiser is the bigger brother of the light frigate. But it has different specialisations (The flak frigate is anti strikecraft, like fighters/bombers.. The Heavy Cruiser deals out more damage, but it's slower, and its only special ability is one that gives it a brief speed boost.)

this is a quick quote from the Sins Wiki. Which appears to be complete crap most of the time, but in this case is definitely true:

Which do you use to chase down the enemies carrier cruiser fleet? Which do you use to attack a fleet dependent on support cruisers? Which do you use to attack the enemies fleet that is dependent on long range dps?


A key point of this whole idea is the idea of unit role. The Vanguard is better than the Inferno because it has more roles. It's not specialised. It's the ugly combination of the Inferno and the Skitter.