[Poll] (with pretty pictures): Halving the Metal Given by T2 Metal Pumps

The problem I have with sidegrades that have no direct increase is that there would be no incentive. If you can beat a player going to T2 (and rushing T2 in itself presents risks) . . . and you can continue to win at T1 . . . what incentive is there?

You say tactical options. I say those are moot if the game is completely winnable all game at T1. There is absolutely no use for them. Unless they offer something T1 doesn't, which means on some level they need to outperform T1. Which again leads to the problem brianpurkiss has perceived with the so-called "tech race".

This is why I think (personal opinion) it's a better design to cater upwards throughout the tiers, with a focus on keeping units from earlier Tiers relevant. That way teching up is still a part of gameplay, but teching up doesn't completely invalidate weaker units.

In later Beta, just before the Bot patches -
1. Yep. Tanks ftw. Ubercannons weren't ridiculously fast, so it was risky to do things with the comm.
2. Yep. Happened all the time!
3. If they can successfully get to T2 and use that bonus income, then yes. It just didn't happen often (it's a VERY powerful strategy, thus very difficult to get to work)
4. Yes. Levellers couldn't be everywhere at once. It was possible to sneak in 50 tanks behind your enemy and take down his T2 or his comm or his eco.

AT PRESENT:
1. Not without an excessive amount of T1 units. As in, hundreds. UberCannoning prevents sneaky commander kills. Also, cheap towers
2. Again, cheap towers and the Ubercannon prevent T1 from doing serious damage. THe T2 gets up, and the T1 player starts getting pushed back - especially if it's T2 Air.
3. It's still a pretty powerful advantage. It's just a ton easier.
4. Depends on what you mean by mistakes. I don't see a way for someone with T2 Air to lose to someone with T1 units, currently.

I'm not asking for COMPLETE sidegrades. The leveller can be considered a more powerful Ant, but that comes with a cost: Slower RoF, overkill on t1 units, etc.

Also, the incentive to go T2 is in the ECO BOOST. The energy boost alone is huge, and enables the mass producing of Orbital stuffs

If those tactical options outstrip those at T1 through greater range/damage/ability to cope with different terrain, then that's an incentive. But I agree that T2 should have things that function better, as well as things filling advanced roles and niches.

However it is a bit of a race if things are a straight upgrade. Take the sniper. Superior range, so much so that it's better than Arty for taking down towers. Hard to approach with Doxen. A solution might be to have them 'Deploy' as well, or have to remain stationary to fire in order to allow lighter units to close the gap. But obviously if you retreated and stopped firing, you'd be able to save your Snipers.

See, I'm perfectly fine by balancing units that way. I'm fine with increasing the costs of units so that Metal is something that can be fought over.

I don't think that reducing Metal output solves the problem. It hides it by making the problem not as easy to perceive. But the problems would still be there in the unit design, and this would be apparent on any system with abundant Metal resources (as intensity of Metal spots would counteract any reduced yield from T2).

I never claimed metal would solve T1-T2 balance - I want metal to be scarcer per spot so that it's worth fighting over. It encourages people not to turtle if map control is rewarded, thus forcing more ground combat. Then we can worry about whether that ground combat needs some of the alterations we have discussed .

I'm of the opinion that the ground combat probably needs the changes regardless, so I'm happy to disagree

Metal can be worth fighting over if Metal costs are high enough. And honestly, I never find that Metal costs are high enough, even in T1. I'm always more aware of my Energy costs, far more than I'm worried about my Metal. It's not a problem that unique to T2, I don't think.

Well that's basically the same thing, isn't it - make things expensive or make metal scarce. Either way. Metal to 'result' ratio is too high.

If you make things more expensive, there's a twofold effect (as supposed to nerfing Metal).

1. It doesn't directly affect all units in the game, as you can increase costs on a per-unit basis (and delay Tiers in a similar manner).

2. It allows for finer controls, as unit costs are various orders of magnitude higher than Metal generation in a of of cases.

(3. Nerfing Metal doesn't help on Metal-abundant planets or systems. If you don't change the costs, you have the same problem. If you change the costs, you don't have the same problem, at least not to the same extent)

A fair correlation would be that nerfing Metal and then buffing unit/structure costs as needed would achieve a similar effect . . . but that's more work for the same end goal.

Is it not possible that what's needed is BOTH a reduction in metal production and further balancing of T2 units? Why is there a one or the other argument going on here?

PS I'm not really even grasping the increase unit costs instead of decreasing metal production. Like, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. Doesn't really make a difference, one just makes numbers bigger and the other, smaller. All that matters is the ratio of cost/production, however you get there.

I've, um, explained the difference. At least twice now.

Let me know if there's anything I need to go over again.

Exactly, why make your entire economy suffer by nerfing mexes when it might just be unit X that is overpowered at a price, just raise units X's cost.

Because currently it is everything which is easy to build. Metal is too abundant per mex - we should be encouraged to fight over mexes more.

I'd call that a generalisation, personally. I guess we're never going to agree though, so it's up to Uber what they do about this.

It is not possible to have a fast growing early game based on extractor points, AND keep a stable/sane late game. It is an impossibility that can be proved mathematically.

TA used wreckage for a VERY good reason.

Want me to go over what condescension is? Or do you already know and just do it on purpose?

No, seriously, I often don't explain myself clearly.

Do you want me to go over anything I've said, or are you just trying to stir up drama?

Just denying it doesn't mean you're not being condescending when you make a comment like, "I've, um, explained the difference. At least twice now."

That being said, can you refer me to the post you made explaining the difference between mex producing less metal vs units costing more?

If a ratio is 10/100 it's exactly the same thing as making the ratio 1/10.

That is to say, if I produce 1 metal but the unit costs 10, then I am producing at a 90% deficit and need to find more metal. If I produce 10 metal and the unit costs 100, then I am running at a 90% deficit and need to find more metal. Like I said, there is no difference except that in one case you made the numbers larger, but the effect on game play is exactly the same.

Or put another way, if currently mex produce X metal and units cost Y, one can solve a problem of there being too much metal available either by increasing the metal cost of everything or decreasing the amount of metal that can be produced. The only difference here is that in one case you have smaller numbers and only have to change one thing (the decrease metal production option), or you continue to have large numbers but have to increase every single unit's metal cost in the game (the increase unit cost option).

When examined in this way, it becomes clear that throttling metal production is the more easily managed solution to overproduction of metal. Unit costs should, and likely will, continue to be balanced against each other, and the tech level cost difference should be tweaked further, but the single most impactful thing that will affect metal overproduction is cutting back on metal production.

I disagree, if anything we should just see larger armies due to the current amount of metal we get.

But if there's so much metal that things like Towers, Nukes, Catapults, Holkins are easy to get, then why would you build armies? Those things do need to be more expensive or nerfed in some way, but the easiest way to encourage expansion is to nerf the amount of metal per mex.
I'm not arguing for less metal overall - I'm arguing for it to be spread more thinly so that more map control is required. More mex per square area = more reward for every inch of ground gained.