What is the difference between current T2 balance and SupCom experimentals?

So after reading through the developer responses to why they don't want to add experimentals, it sounds like they don't want to invalidate lower tiers. Funny thing is that T2 does just that.

Can somebody explain to me why it's OK for t2 to be a "strategic decision" of when to move into it and why overpowered experimentals aren't OK for being "strategic decisions" in the exact same way?

#NoUnitObsolescence2014

I can't explain it. The only thing I can come up with is maybe their rationale is that T2 units are so expensive? But that's exactly how experimentals would be. *shrugs*

I vote for Advanced units to be specialized, rather than so powerful.

I feel like we have had miss communication between what makes a unit obsolete another, and what makes a unit specialised.

While having T2 units be specialised in one way would be nice, when it comes to a T2 tank the unit can only really be specialised in a way that replaces the central role of the T1 tank.

So here is the point, does the T2 tank beat the T1 tank in every way, or does the T2 tank only beat the T1 tank at it's main role?

Because I honestly feel that is what Uber means by "some units are going to be direct upgrades", they are saying something we don't agree with, but are essentially doing what we want, but in kind of a strange way.

We feel like the T2 tank should take on a different role to the T1 tank, but uber feel like the T2 tank should be better at the T1's tank basic role.


So do we reign in the T2 tank, or diversify the T1 tank's capability's?

Explain?

What is the basic role of the tank?

What are the additional role of the tank?

Which?

C'mon, stop being oblique and explain yourself.
Why must the T2 tank be in the same role as the T2 tank? Why can't it specialise?
You haven't explained why you think this is the case.

Ign what are you talking about. Multi targeting vs single targeting. That's how the blob of T1 tanks can be different to a single T2 tank.

And that T2 tank can operate at 100% efficiency until death, rather than losing efficiency over multiple deaths, as a number of T1 tanks do. However, that's not really any different to how Experimentals worked in SupCom... so we return to the topic of the thread...

What is the difference between current T2 balance and SupCom experimentals?

Answer: In principle? Not a single thing.

Experimentals could step on units and destroy them by walking right?

Comparing the current t2 to t4 in supcom is completely beyond me.
In FA one t4 could easily wipe out whole armies (at least t1 and t2 armies).
Try that with one t2 tank please in PA.

apples and oranges have more in common really

EDIT:
Thinking further:
T4 in FA are much less about just "better tank". They are a whole new type of unit that plays quite different than the mass tanks before them.

I don't think we've seen the end goal of Uber's balance.

But, apart from that, @cola_colin makes a good point.

People often get hung up on the "but that's no different in theory" . . . because it isn't, the power levels are just different. But the power levels being different make a major impact on the comparison being made.

Care to provide an example that applies to all experimental units? As far as I'm aware, each faction in SupCom did have a "better tank" style experimental. Some even had better versions of other unit roles too. Need I bring up the Soulripper or the Atlantis?

What made those "a whole new type of unit" rather than just being a better gunship and carrier respectively?

What made the Yolona Oss behave like anything other than a better nuke launcher?

What made the Mavor or the Salvation anything more than a better artillery piece?

Saying a monkey lord is just a better tank is just complete beyond me as I said. They are vastly different. Stating anything else is completely beyond me. You might as well say that humans grow wings. Makes no sense to me.

A monkey lord is just vastly different used than a single tank.

Do you really use it differently? How? What special properties does the Monkeylord possess that makes it behave like "a whole new type of unit"?

It's a line breaker with phenomenal DPS and a lot of hitpoints, that is also amphibious, has both anti-air and anti-naval capability (although small) AND is also has stealth against radar.

That to me, sounds like a "Better Tank".

Not in the way a monkeylord does. They play differently. Nobody ever spams monkeylords to begin with. Monkeylords are build directly be engineers. They cannot be transported. They walk over other units. They can kill whole armies completely alone. They focus the firepower of a whole army in a single place. Their death creates a single wreck so valuable that it can turn games around. They are physically gigantic units. They can walk right through water.

Do you use it to destroy that one mex your opponent left undefended ?

Not only stats are important but cost is also important when it comes to a unit's role.

I think someone made a thread about this...

Do you only use tanks to destroy that one mex left undefended?

And what precisely do any of those points have to do with it not being a better tank?

Everything that is small and cheap to use. Not a crazy expensive t4 unit of which you only have 1. You'd never nuke that mex as well.

From what I understand the main reason behind no t4 in PA is that PA tries to feature big fights with big armies.
t4 is a complete missmatch to that because t4 means single units suddenly win the war.

I think you're misunderstanding the concept behind what a "better tank" means in this context.

A gunship is a better tank because it flies and thus is better. Apart from flying both may have the same stats for this example. Find prove that this statement is wrong.
You are making it out to be much too simple.