Direct Upgrades are AWESOME

The problem is that there are no direct upgrades in your post.

That has been the problem in the current build. A T2 tank which beats equal cost in T1 tanks is a direct upgrade.

I didn't read your thread because it's full of crappy unfunny filler. Get to the point next time. /grump

Cost does affect the ratio of t2 units to t1 units, however.

Take the Leveller and the Ant.

If the Leveller can beat its own cost in Ants, it is an upgrade. If it can draw with or lose to its own cost in Ants, it is a sidegrade.

It is not a shade of grey.

An upgrade means that the t2 unit replaces the role of the t1 unit. When the Leveller cost 3 Ants, it would always beat its equivalent cost in Ants. There was literally no point in building Ants, because you could have been building Levellers. Yes, Ants added extra health to your blob of Levellers. But someone with 4 Levellers would beat someone with 3 Levellers and 3 Ants.



Shall we talk Sins for a second?

In Sins, you can upgrade your units - you research upgrades for weapons, armor, shields, special abilities, etc. Those are the upgrades.

You can sidegrade your army - you pursue branches of research that unlock more unit roles.

Shall we talk Rise of Nations?

In Rise of Nations, you can upgrade your units - you go to your factory/barracks/stable, etc. , and instead of producing a unit, you produce a research task. E.g. that upgrades all pikemen to riflemen.

You can also sidegrade your army - to get horsemen, you build a stable. As you progress through the ages, more unit roles become available. At first you can only build a generic cavalry unit. During the next age, you can build light cavalry, heavy cavalry and horse archers.

An upgrade means a unit performs the same role as another unit. There is no reason to have both units at once.

A sidegrade means that the unit performs a different role to another unit. There is a reason to have both units at once.

THAT IS black and white though. You are saying, if it has the same role, then **** us because it is a direct upgrade.

I am saying, if it has better stats, and crappier cost, but so much in a middle niche, then you will still mass produce tanks, and layer them with a few t2. If you produce just t2 you will lose cost to cost with t1 army. If you produce just t1 you will lose to a t1 army buffed with a line of t2 in the back (which will engage targets together unlike 2 rows of ants). If you produce them together, you get better clash dps than in other situations.

Stating the ONLY way is the "sins" way is definitely a game design submission and not a balance submission. Balance literally starts for at least a short term win by adjusting the numbers where it simply doesn't piss you off that it is cruse control for win, you just build it an the game wins itself.

*shrug* If that's how you define upgrade then I'm not going to argue the semantics. To me, if it fulfils the same role and is better in all areas except cost, it's an "upgrade". Whether its an efficient upgrade is another matter, but to me it's still an upgrade, m'kay? If you disagree with my definition then... meh. I don't particularly want to engage in an argument as pointless as "the definition of upgrade" in RTS's. Sorry.

Yes it's black and white. Because you're talking about the difference between upgrading (going high) and sidegrading (going wide). The grey area is when you start moving both high and wide, along the hypotenuse.

Yes, if it has the same role,it is a direct upgrade. I think you replied to this post in other thread, and I've only just seen your reply now, so I'm confused.

A direct upgrade which is specialised is not a direct upgrade.

You and me agree trophy. I was merely commenting on the terminology. F*** this anti-semantic bullsh!t that has been spreading about this forum lately. This whole forum is semantics. Because if we're constnatnly misunderstanding each other because we're all using terminology in completely different ways, and we're not allowed to clarify what we mean when we use the terminology, there is no point to the communication.

I am a huge fan of open and honest communication. ANd part of what that entails is that we use consistent terminology. For ease of communication, a direct upgrade is a direct UPgrade. A sidegrade is a SIDEgrade. A UpAndSidegrade is parly what we want - because an UpAndSidegrade would have a different role than the original unit. - Think about the Vanguard. 1 Vanguard is not as good a health sink as 12 Infernos, and it's not as great a scout as 1 Skitter (Which is twice as fast)



I'm not saying the only way is the Sins way.

For ease of communication, I'm going to refer to upgrades as height, and side-grades as width.

Sins does height in two ways - you can directly upgrade units. And you can also make fleets larger. I think using size of fleet as height (black), and diversity of fleet as width (white) is the least confusing way to describe this.

What Sins does very well is having fleet compositions of 100% basic units being equally viable as a fleet of 100% composition advanced units. The grey is caused by being able to combine a black fleet (lots and lots of units of one type) with a white fleet (one unit of a different type) to create grey fleets.


I much prefer that idea to the SupCom idea (where tiers do not mix and match) or the other idea Iv'e seen floated on this forum (everything is completely flatbalanced so there is no progression)

Nanolathe, I disagree with your definition because you aren't considering the army as a whole, you are considering the army unit by unit.

If it fulfils the same role as 5 t1 units, but costs the same as 10 t1 units, then it is clearly not an upgrade now, is it? You are getting more bang for your buck if you buy the basic unit. It isn't an upgrade in that case, as you aren't raising the grade or standard, you're lessening it.

Play the PTE. Come at me with your single Leveller. And my 12 WTFTanks eat it for breakfast. A Leveller isn't better than the same cost in WTFTanks, so it can't be an upgrade.

This is a strategy game, with an economic component. Cost is part of the balancing of army composition, whether you personally like it or not.

But hey, that's your opinion. I saw tinned peaches at the supermarket today. You could either buy 400g for $2.40, or 800g for $5.60. I'll continue buying two 400g tins, you keep buying 800g tins. We'll both go home happy, but I'll always go home $0.80 richer

Someone tell me what I need to replace "Direct Upgrade" with so we can have a discussion about balance, not a discussion about terminology.

For ****'s sake.

So you don't agree with me Kiwi, and your response is completely nonsensical metaphors? This is why I don't like conversing with people who just argue for the sake of it.

If you really want to argue semantics then I conclude that the Leveller is neither upgrade, nor sidegrade (though it is closer to the former in my opinion) and that it is, in fact, just a "Bigger Tank", which is in my opinion the least interesting way of designing the unit. It has all of the numbers of the Ant, made bigger (including cost). It's not a Different Tank, it's not a Better Tank... it's just a Bigger Tank.

Here's a balance discussion:

Direct Upgrades are a no-no. Even the Leveller should be worse than the ant at something (so the ant has a comparative advantage, at least). The easiest solution would RoF and Overkill on T1 units. Thus, the leveller becomes ok at killing T1, but better at killing t2, and etc etc. Obvious point is obvious.

More importantly - what really doesn't sit well with me is units that completely invalidate other units, regardless of role. Yes, counters are fine - absolutely fine! They just shouldn't remove the use of a unit from the fight completely. For example, Naval T1 is so bad against T2 Naval, and so slow, that they are invalidated at the start of the game. You hardly see anyone build Naval T1 in the higher - level games, simply because by the time your forces reach the enemy base, he'll have T2 naval out, which eat T1 Naval like confetti in a rainstorm. Is it used as a smokescreen for the larger ships occasionally? Yes. But 50 of them cannot take on a Leviathan. They move too slowly.

This applies to Shellers and Vanguards too. The use of either of these units completely invalidates using Infernos, Ants, and to a lesser extent, massed Doxen. Shellers can take massive swathes out of armies in moments, while Vanguards can just tank the damage from the units. Even GIL-Es have trouble making headway against them.

These are direct upgrades, in my book. They need fixed.

I liked your post although it was not a discussion

You mere(d)ly outlined the issue

NOW we need to discuss on how this issue can be solved.

In the PTE it was solved...by making T2 units so expensive that they are not really useful anymore in most cases.
(I wonder whether @nanolathe ever played that build...)

This is not ideal, so we need to talk about what we would like a more refined solution to look like.

Some people want every unit to be a sidegrade.

Uber wants "some" units to be a (direct ?) upgrade.
As we noticed from this discussion (about terminology), it is important to make a distinction between a direct upgrade and an upgrade in terms of stats (not taking into account the cost), so it would be interesting to know whether Uber actually means more cost effective units or more powerful units when they talk about upgrades.

As I tried to show, units can be more powerful without necessarily invalidating cheaper units.
Specialization is another way to have T2 units that are useful but don't invalidate T1 units.

Of course this can be mixed.

What should happen now, is that we discuss how we can have a good compromise that most of us can live with.
Good suggestions have already been made (e.g. @burntcustard has also made a thread on this topic, I believe) and if we have some constructive discussions about this topic and manage to come up with a few solutions that might work for everyone, Uber will have some good feedback to work with and we might actually influence the balancing of T2 vs T1 in a decent way.

In every thread about balancing, there are many people stating that they want every unit to be a sidegrade...I was once amongst those.

But Uber knows that many of us want that, already... if we want them to listen to us and take us seriously, we have to come up with some solutions that might work with what Uber wants PA to be, as Uber does NOT seem to want every unit to be strictly a sidegrade.

If we propose ways that involve having T2 units that are "upgrades" in some way but that still prevent any T1 units from becoming obselete, we might achieve more than trying to "force" Uber to do things they are not going to do.

I'm not arguing just for the sake of it Nanolathe. Try actually engaging with my discussion, rather than being abrasive.

The only one making a nonsensical argument statement here is you. You're not even backing it up with the how and the why. Sure, my example was piss poor. At least it was present. You're making statements without explaining or providing examples. Sorry, we'll never have a chance of seeing eye to eye unless you say why I should.

Cost is a factor. Whether you like it or not. Cost is what stops stuff from being a strict upgrade. Cost is the simplest way of changing between an upgrade and a sidegrade. Cost is what changed the Leveller from being slightly better than the same cost in Ants (an upgrade, almost a sidegrade), to being much much better than the same cost in Ants (Definitely an upgrade), to being worse than the same cost in Ants (a downgrade) over the last 6 months. Cost is what makes 1 Leveller in the current PTE have its butt kicked by the same cost in Ants. Cost is also the fastest way of balancing the game, rather than radically restructuring every single value for everything.



That's a cool conclusion. There is no why however. There is just statement. As usual. I ask myself, is it worth having a conversation with you, when you make statements and provide insufficient evidence to back them up?

It's a good conclusion.

Now compare how the armies of (28 Ants), (1 Leveller and 21 Ants), (2 Levellers and 14 Ants), (3 Levellers and 7 Ants) and (4 Levellers) perform against one another

Compare how they perform against different units.

I don't know if you've noticed, but Levellers do 250 dps. Ants do 21dps. (Let's just ignore the ratio of 12 to 1, it's a bad ratio. Let's take 11 to 1 instead)

11 Ants do 231 dps. 1 Leveller does 250dps.

11 Ants can attack anything up to 11 different targets.
The Leveller can attack one target at a time.
11 Ants have 250 health each. They can only survive 250 worth of splash.
The Leveller has 625 health, and can survive that much damage, direct or splash

How are they different?

Against a Vanguard or other single high health targets - you want Levellers. Levellers do more DPS.
Against Infernos/multiple high health targets - you still want Levellers.
Against a Sheller/Pelter/other units relying on splash - you want Levellers. Levellers survive more splash damage.
Against Ants/Doxen/multiple lower health targets - you want Ants because of overkill.
Against a Leveller - you want Ants. PTE build is all the evidence you need.
Against stationary targets without splash - you either want the Leveller's range to hit it from a position of impunity, or you want the blob of Ants to soak the direct damage at the cost of decreasing damage as the blob dies.

The two tanks are different tanks. Not just good and better, big and bigger. They have different applications. That basic premise is present in the current build, they just need to be tweaked a little more to achieve that.

What are their two roles?

Light armour, medium ranged, direct consistent damage.
Heavy armour, medium ranged, direct consistent damaged.

I'd prefer to see those roles further refined in accordance with Uber's wishes, rather than radical restructuring just for the sake of it.

I get where you are coming from with sidegrades. However, I'd prefer to keep the vacancy for the sidegrades open. There's nothing to stop both the light tank and the heavy tank from existing parallel to whatever unit ideas you've been cooking up.

Shall we translate that metaphor back into PA?

You buy 5600 metal worth of Levellers. I buy the equivalent in Ants. Because Ants are more cost effective than Levellers, I still have stuff leftover after we fight. When your 5600 metal worth of levellers is destroyed by my Ants, I roll into your base unimpeded and eat your stuff.Or, alternatively, the Levellers perform some role that is different to the Ants. In which case I have 4800 worth of Ants, plus 800 worth of Levellers. My Ants eat your Levellers

Absolutely nothing. You discussed in the OP why diverse roles were awesome, but attributed it to direct upgrades, not role diversity. We're having a discussion about balance. But there is a difference between direct upgrades and role diversity. Role diversity is not the same thing as direct upgrades. The awesome balance is role diversity. The not awesome balance is same role, different tier.

If you had actually bothered to read my posts, you may have noticed that I was discussing balance. That I am always discussing balance. You may have noticed that it is completely in accordance with this post:

LordoftheNoobs

Firstly, that is a discussion of balance. You have to define the problem before you can discuss the solution.

Oh a solution ... Is that all you want? That was one of the very first threads to ever make it into the balance forums. Discussing this exact issue, back in January.

My solution:

The cost ratio of Levellers:Ants should not be 12:1, nor should it be 7:1 (What it was in 58772). Those appear to be the upper and lower limits.

Therefore cost ratio between 8:1 and 10:1. Preferably at the lower range of that value, including 7:1.

Levellers have the same range as Ants OR Levellers have less speed than Ants (so that levellers can't kite indefinitely) {preferably the latter}

Preferably both of those implemented.

My thoughts on your post.

1. Naval is just TOO slow. The speed it was was fine. Now that Tanks are faster, it could probably easily be bumped up to 7 or 8 in speed.
2. Shellers I have an issue with also - I really think there should be a lot more variability with speeds of units from the same factory, and also the range of that unit should be decreased to be more in line with Pelters. I think splash damage should just be decreased
3. I disagree with Vanguards invalidating infernos. In the current PTE, Vanguards cost 12 Infernos. Which is equivalent to 12000 health (vs 5000).
   I do think there is an issue with Vanguards partially invalidating Skitters (air scouts are better scouts late game for speed).
   I disagree with the idea that Vanguards are unbeatable - only if you have air transports. VGs perform terribly against anything that can kite them, which is basically everything. The length of the engagement just lasts longer than everything else, but I've never had any trouble despatching them in the open field. They only cause issues once you reach the thin-red-line
   Playing around with speeds would go a long way to solving issues I believe.

No. Cost determines a unit's scale. More expensive units will naturally have more power and potentially do more things better. The only way for a unit to be an upgrade or a downgrade is if the price tag is screwed up. A unit that is underpriced becomes super effective and spammy and can even render other units obsolete. A unit that is overpriced becomes weak and niche and can even be totally useless.

But that's not the argument. The argument is that if the only thing separating the viability between two units is their COST, then what the hell are you doing with your life? The best reason to justify a unit's existence is if it can bring something to the table or some combination of abilities that nothing else can. If you take two tanks, and they have different costs, and their roles are both "main line battle tank", remove one from the game. You don't lose anything of value and the effort can go towards better things.

Supcom had this problem in spades. Too many units were micro variants of the exact same role. That might matter to a sufficiently dedicated autist, but at the end of the day similar units were used to accomplish the exact same thing. That's not new or engaging or exciting. It's a waste. Take the best pick of the litter, and throw the rest away.

It was not a problem, it is a feature of that game. And you're missing the big picture here, the tier system of Supcom. They were variants of the exact same role because of the tier system. So basically what you're saying is that the tier system of Supcom wasn't new or engaging or exciting. But for me it was and it definitely wasn't a waste. When your opponent brings more advanced tech to the battlefield it means that he has now stronger weapons and wider arsenal of weapons than you have. To me that is exciting.

Besides, adding new units with some new roles doesn't make the game automatically better. It is extremely difficult to come up with actual interesting roles that make sense, add lots of new to the game and are fun to play. Supcom had mainly the "basic" unit types like anti air, assault unit, artillery unit, etc. All the essentials were there. And then there were some real gems like aeon missile ship and SACUs. To me it was enough and I don't feel it was missing something essential.

The hummingbird is more expensive than the firefly. The firefly attacks ground a lot better than the hummingbird does, and the firefly soaks up missiles from Hummingbirds a lot better than hummingbirds do. So you're wrong on that count.

That's the point.

What separates a Leveller from 1 Levellers worth of Ants?

If Ants are 3:1 -

Health: 375:630
DPS: 126:250
Range: 100:120.
Speed: 10:10
Max Enemy Targets: 3:1
Min Enemy Targets: 1:1
Muzzle Velocity: 150:150.
Max number of positions occupied by unit or targeted by enemy: 3:1
Min number of positions occupied by unit or targeted by enemy: 1:1
Direct Damage Health: 375:630
Splash Damage Health: 125:630

If Ants are 12:1
Health: 1500:630
DPS: 504:250
Range: 100:120.
Speed: 10:10
Max Enemy Targets: 12:1
Min Enemy Targets: 1:1.
Max number of positions occupied by unit or targeted by enemy: 12:1
Min number of positions occupied by unit or targeted by enemy: 1:1
Direct Damage Health: 1500:630
Splash Damage Health: 125:630

Cost is not the only thing separating the two units at all. Cost is the only thing that is making the two units (n ants and 1 Leveller) equally viable. The viability of the two units is being separated by everything else.

Look at this gif. (All credit to BurntCustard)

It's pretty blatantly obvious that the Leveller is no way an upgrade, seeing as it gets annihilated by the same cost in Ants. It's naiive to say "Oh but it's just better, so I'll just progress to building Levellers instead of Ants". Your opponent will always be building 12 Ants to every Leveller you build, and they'll win every engagement.

Big picture, not little picture.

Are you talking about supcom units within the same tier? Or between tiers?Because it's not a problem between tiers. It's only a problem within the same tier.

If cost if for scale, then essentially the leveller doesn't scale up very well to make it a true direct upgrade.

It's still kinda boring in most respects, but then again, so is the Ant.

Well Exactly.

If a single unit has a cost of 2500, and is identical in every respect to a unit costing 50 . . . only his stats are a squared in comparison, the unit is still not redundant.

Why? Let's assume both units are viable. Let's assume they both fulfill their specific (similar) role.

However. For 1 unit that costs 2500, you can have 50 units that cost 50. Your single unit is going to be weaker against AoE firepower. Your swarm is going to be weaker against AoE firepower, but will also server as a better buffer against AoE firepower than the unit that costs 2500.

There are probably more examples I can come up with, but I hope I've finally managed to point out the collossal foolishness in ignoring cost as a viable factor in unit balance and application on the battlefield.

What he means is, if a unit with high damage can kill 4 other high health units in 4 hits, and fires a shot every 5 seconds... It is inferior to another unit with 1/8th the cost, 1/8th the health, and can kill itself in 2 hits and another unit in 4 hits, which it fires in 3 seconds.

The reason is overkill. The shot is literally killing 1 of that weak tank and 75% of the rest of the damage is tenderizing the ground pointlessly. One tank down, 32 to do. With the big tanks, you could kill 4 tanks rather fast, but with the small tanks you can kill 4/32.

Now against structures, your armies clash and you must choose to wittle down on their army or attack their t2 mexes and the health they have might survive your army. That is where the 8x tank comes in, hit that mex two or three times and you get instant destruction of it. Same with commanders, while ants can swarm it and get U-gun'd, x8 tank can bring the same commander down with 4-8 of them with their heavy "leveling" cannons.

...YES I am talking about the leveler. In that way, the leveler has a purpose, shooting commanders and meaty structure clearing them quicker, while it is cost ineffective as tank swarm. You would build levelers if you were dealing with turrets, dense bases, and commanders, but you wouldn't build levelers by themselves against ants.

Those units aren't equal though . . . on any level . . . including cost.

I thought we were discussing situations whereby cost was the only difference?

This idea of ratio based on cost misses some of the finer detail of all this.

Take the concept of 12:1 ratio Ants - Levelers. On paper the leveler is a very bad choice because its less efficient than ants in every way. However I'd argue that it might be worth making levelers anyway, my reasoning? The range difference.

In a direct confrontation the ants win- however the higher range leveler can kill all the anit *untouched* if it's managed properly.

Similar thing occurs with the inferno - vanguard comparison. Infernos are now more cost efficient than vanguards for teh health- so why make vanguards? Well the vanguard still has the advantage of *concentrating the health* in a small area. This is very useful if attacking a heavily fortified area. As we saw with defences before there comes a point where the DPS of the defences is fast enough to kill off any number of a particular type of unit before it gets into range to fire back. When that happens have 10 or 1000 makes no difference they all go the same way. Now I think that although infernos are tough, they're still weak enough that concentrated defences could shred them. Given the huge health of the vanguards its much harder to prevent them getting in (if you have 10 for example, each vanguard can potentially get that bit closer until say unit 6 or 7 is in range, then the defence wall falls).

I actually quite like the balance of t1 to t2 in the PTE (even though in theory the T2 is highly inefficient) due to the fact that there *are* good uses for t2 and metal is pretty abundant late game so the lower efficiency is offset by the advantages of consolidating strength and fire power in a smaller area.