A proposal for the implication of "mega" units

I enjoy a healthy debate Tatsujb, but this was blatantly uncalled for. First and foremost, I wasn't talking about FAF... I've never played it, never seen it, and had never heard of it prior to the PA forums. Nothing in any of my posts EVER has been about FAF and it was never hinted or suggested that I may have been. I have no ******* clue what the balance in FAF looks like. Maybe it's perfect, I don't know, so I for damned sure didn't say anything derogatory about it.

As far as vanilla sup com 1 and vanilla forged alliance... the balance was complete bullshit. If you could build the Aeon super generator thing you had unlimited resources and hundreds of workers could spam out hundreds of T4 units. That's not a lie, and damned near every game I ever played involved one of those generators.

In vanilla SupCom the only time a lower tier provided any value at all was when it offered a specialist unit that was not available in higher tiers. I genuinely don't consider mixing a few T2 AA pieces with your super units a mixed army, nor do I believe that leaving a few select roles unfilled counts as leaving a tier valid.

It's as simple as this, T2 invalidates T1. Tier 3 invalidates T2. Xp units became the new T4 once they were available. The only roles left to T2 and T3 were support roles like AA and mobile shields. T4 units were the line breakers and they completely invalidated T1-T3 tanks and bots.

woah people this is getting a bit out of hand... and damn near personal.. <sigh> this always happens... This is why I'm generally against name-dropping in a post.

About the Aeon moho generator leading to infi-xperimentals .... that sounds like the fault and problem of/with just one unit/structure - the moho generator, which no-one is thinking of introducing to PA. One thing for certain though, and I cant say it enough, experimentals never invalidated anything under normal conditions with a few notable exceptions (super nuke in forged alliance and moho). The jump from t1-t2-t3 however was a completely different question, the only vaguely useful t1 unit being a scout if that, the moment t2 hit the field. What I'm asking for needn't be super, merely large, impressive looking and with high health - heck remove the vanguard and bring it back resized and re-purposed and still with the uber-cannon and I'd be fairly happy with that. It needn't have a higher dps either, maybe more range and a slower RoF and as long as it leads to a big hit on your energy there will be a reasonably balanced unit and I'm kind of struggling to see what it might invalidate

I enjoy a healhy debate as well, you may be misunderstanding my words, I was after the denouncing of a claim that experimental units could (or should) survive nukes, based on what is known from Supcom, when even in vanilla supcom which was in a state of imbalance compared to FAF this was not the case.

I'm simply flustered by people claiming things about games they've only ever heard about.

Did I ever state things about a game I hadn't extensively played? No. In an effort to stay factual I only ever talk about games that I've played extensively.

If people want to use supcom ( and it should be FAF specifically, otherwise it's not objective) as a basis for illustrating a point, sure, I can only see it as in the interest of the debate, but just get the facts right otherwise the arguments seem legitimate when it is the exact opposite, and that's adding insult to injury.


sorry for the previous post.

I found a game that illustrates what I was saying
This is between the longest running most championship winning N°1 supcom player of all time, @luxun17 and Zock (@charliefoxtrot) more than a fair match as well :

Code:

http://youtu.be/7NlC_tzkzdI?t=29m28s

at this moment in the game the exp's worth versus equivalent mass t3 is tested.
also this is the only exp in the game.




in this one both players (top players) don't even bother with exps and go for support commanders and t3 with some t2 and t1 thrown in as well:

Code:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUAptIYV4Fo

both are extremely good casts and a great watch, the caster has a golden voice, so it's an overall great time, I recommend watching both or at least the first in it's entirety.

Tatsujb, it does sound like it was a simple case of mutual misunderstanding.

I certainly never advocated that they should survive nukes, or even that they did. I only acknowledged that Tohron specifically requested super units tough enough to survive 1-3 nukes. He made that request 3 separate times, that's the only reason nukes were mentioned.

In Vanilla SC/FA my biggest problem with T4 is that when you can afford it a monkeylord is always a better investment than T3 ground units. The Aeon generator exacerbates the problem by making them easy to afford, but at no time is it a better option to spend your infinite money on infinite T3 units instead of T4s.

I understand you love FAF, and from everything I've heard about it I would probably love it too, but you have to remember that the player base for vanilla SC/FA was hundreds, maybe thousands, of times larger. It's not fair to assume SC related comments are related to FAF. I'm not comparing T4 costs in FAF because I have no experience there. Sadly I can't watch the videos because I'm at work, youtube and twitch are on the forbidden list, but I really do believe you about the T4 cost being balanced in FAF. However, the Cost of T4 has never been my core beef against them, but rather the overlapping combat roles with all other ground assault units.

Look at it this way...

If a T4 unit is too cheap or too accessible then there is absolutely no reason to build anything smaller and the game devolves into "who can finance his shift into T4 the fastest". Vanilla SC had this problem.

If a T4 unit is too expensive why would you ever build one when a mob of T1-T3 units will do the job better and cheaper? This is the problem with PA right now, or at least a build or two ago. There was no incentive to tech up.

If you find the mystic magic sweet spot where T3 and T4 are equally cost effective, why would you have two tiers that do the same thing for the same cost? Sure, both routes are viable, but if they are doing the same thing have you really added variety to the game?


I still reiterate I have no problem with large, or even giant units. I have no problem with super expensive units... I just want the units to have a distinct combat role that absolutely does not replace or even overlap with any other unit. My first choice would be a T2 Orbital class that mirrors T2 Naval but has units that are extremely specialized.

If we include a super heavy land unit I ask the question, in what way is it's role distinct from all other land units? Does it replace tanks? Does it replace artillery? In what way does it not replace them? Does it have a specific weakness that can be exploited to make smaller units still valuable? Is it still valuable itself despite this weakness?

seriously speaking though.

I'm glad you took things this well, i rather prefer this turn on the conversation.

Also you'll be surprised to know that FAF's player base has been slowly growing since GPG's close and has since bypassed GPGnet's supcom max playerbase count and hasn't stopped growing since:>

Few know this, few would believe.

It's one of these rare game out there contradicting the usual chart of playerbase over time after release.


keep in mind GPG could only support 100 users in the main chat lobby, whereas FAF has removed this limit which allows us to see that we have peaks of 900 users online at the same time and a general average of 700 users online at the same time.

So what are we even discussing here?

The size of FAF's dong, or implementation's of mega bots?

we'll get back to mega bots when we've settled issues regarding using FAF's dong as an example for why mega units are bad in general. :>

I think the point was meant that FAF's dong is both enormous and delicious.

That number represents the online player base, but the online player base is a tiny fraction of the total playerbase. Just like in PA the single player matches were vastly more common and I am still not convinced that FAF has even close to the same player base that vanilla SC had. Your charts (far too many and too fine print to read in detail) build a compelling case that FAF had more online players at once, but I have the strong suspicion that FAF's community is more PvP driven than the original SC playerbase and that it skews the online count out of context. Few people were overly interested in the finer points of balance when Comp-Stomp-Coop and Single player were the main attraction.

Seriously though, I have nothing against FAF, and I 100% believe that Any number of Tiers can be *balanced*, but cost to performance remains a tertiary concern to me. I'm 95% focused on overlapping combat roles.

To return to the core discussion I unconventionally quote myself

(vanilla)SupCom's experimentals completely overlapped with with other units. They were scaled up versions of ground units, or even versions of miniature bases that overlapped with the role of a whole army. (Fat Boy and Megalith) None of TA's heavy units had a unique role and their entire function was to serve as a "super" resource sink doing things that could be done with other tiers. If you have more money than you could spend you were always better off building the T4 version, but there was always a T1-3 version that could have done the job.

I want to see heavy units that serve unique roles, this is why I keep suggesting we look at orbital "supers" before we look at ground units. There is currently no orbital counter to the Anchor. A long range, high damage, slow firing, slow tracking orbital destroyer has a legitimate role... it would be helpless against avengers, but could be used to shatter enemy anchors during an invasion. Anti-Anchor, Orbital Anti-nuke, orbital AA, as well as transports for air and water are all roles that need to be filled to enable interplanetary combat.

If we want new ground units, heavy, mega, or even T1 tiny units, I have to ask "What role will it fulfill?", "How will it interact with the other units?", and "Will this unit infringe upon the role of an existing unit?". I feel the current bot vs tank balance needs adjustment, I would rather see them as distinct from each other as infantry and tanks in CnC with them each vulnerable to different styles of weapons. This would help validate both sets of units by giving them roles and counters as distinct as bombers and AA tanks. I don't want another unit that competes with the Dox, Slammer, Ant, Pounder, Inferno, and Vanguard for the role of "main battle unit". I think we have too many too similar units right now and would like to see them diversified further before we even consider another name for that list.

The problem I see with using FAF is a comparison, is that FAF has no choice in the matter, they would get absolutely grilled if they actually removed things like mega bots and others, because they need to remain faithful to SupCom.

Not that things like mega bots can't be balanced, because they can, but that still doesn't cover issues with player usability (Just because something is balanced, doesn't mean people actually use them) and mechanics (As you know, I don't see their purpose), and even in cases just simply don't like them (I don't feel they are very fun to have, like having a ww2 game where people use nothing but maus tanks.)

So, yeah....:/

no we don't we really couldn't care less about being faithfull to supcom.

in fact, we're not.

we changed the icon set, the team colors, the way overflow economy worked, added a "shared" game style where units are given over, completely *screwed* the way factory tiers worked with engie mod by introducing such new core game mechanics such as the "factory HQ".

ECT.

Experimentals were heavily nerfed in variety of ways since the beginning of FAF, and it was by general consensus.

If removing experimental had been agreed apon by the FAF community, it would have been done,

Don't forget, it's not just about balance. I'm not disputing the balance from FAF, or even vanilla SC. I'm disputing the fact that all experimental units had combat roles that blatantly overlapped other units and used only economic balancing to make other units relevant at all.

Here's an example, even if AA tanks were overpriced, you would still use them. And if bombers were overpriced, you would still use them. Price may effect how often you use it, but you will still use it because it serves a distinct combat role that cannot be replaced.

If the cost of a Dox was 10 times higher you would never use it. Instead you would use one of the half dozen other direct ground-to-ground combat units.

I want to see heavy units fulfill roles where spamming them because they are too cheap will not destroy the enemy base, but even if they were vastly over priced there would still be times you build them because they serve an important role that you can't get elsewhere.

I doubt that completely.

let me underline that one ....

so according to you the factory HQ was a vanilla supcom thing ?

btw that was me who said that, not @igncom1

Please guys, lets not get in a fuss because we don't agree about the flavor of FAF's dong...

Look, seriously, it doesn't matter how FAF did it unless it's being used as an example of whether or not EXP units were balanced. For the sake of debate it's much simpler to agree on principle that super units can be *balanced*, because whether FAF had perfect balance, or TA:Spring had perfect balance, etc doesn't matter. Balance does not mean fun or functional. Checkers has a single "unit" type and it's well balanced too. FAF might have been balanced, but I'm still not convinced multi-role super units are good for the game unless they serve a distinct purpose beyond being a money dump to replace chunks of your army.

what is there NOT to understand about that facepalm GIF? ... like seriously even if there is room for interpretation
that GIF clearly should show my intent in context with FAF and factory HQ´s

man, you surely like putting words into others mouths, do you?

i disagree, for something to be balanced or balancable it NEEDS to be functional at minimum
otherwise it´s simply broken ... for instance transports unloading units still aren´t fully functional as they still drop units while landing which makes balanicing unitdrops difficult even though it is a lower hight now than before

it's not my fault for not understanding, you do realise your wern't answering me and starting another topic altogether without letting anyone know.

no it wasn't obvious that you were just starting a talk about HQs being a bad idea instead of disagreeing with the statement that FAF wasn't making any attempt to stay faithful to supcom and that that would explain experimentals still being there.

taking your actual meaning into account it looks as if you didn't read my post.

now that's what I'm talking about! that's the heart of the debate. not that Exps are OP or unbalancable ect...

Personally I find it curious that having more choices as to how you tackle a problem not be conciliated with wanting more units.

I mean don't tell me you're part of these people who don't want more units?

The way I see it, experimentals are already in the game, in the form of exotic units that have a different way of going about things. Mavor said it himself, the Halley is an experimental, so is the SXX, so is the unit cannon.

and it's not going to take long before more units come along that have this "more powerful", "more emphatic", "different" thing about them compared to the other units.

I don't really see the problem. it's not necessarily better, at least with balance it's not supposed to be.

it's just a choice. so why is adding more variety and choice to the game bad?

Well, are we making a competitive game, or not?

If we are, then most choices are going to end up superfluous.

If not, verity isn't bad, so long as it's justified and has a purpose rather then being a catch all unit.

nooooo :<

that's such a terrible thing to say!