We all really love dox and all but..

Not even close.

so i take it i am the only one thinking there might be a possible comeback of a modified stinger which uber wanted to showcase and gather data with the rebalanced dox ...

Pretty much, yea; just you.

I know that it was rather stupid that ants were the most efficient AA when they still shot air. Doesn't mean it can't be done right.

as in "make them do what they are actualy supposed to do"-right ...

well god forbid uber having a bit of an experimental attitude ...

Its mostly throwing weird things in the batch that they think are cool.

I don't think they get it. I'm a computer techie dude. I'm the antithesis of cool. I'm not here for COOL. I'm here for awesome......and awesome includes a balanced awesome

For goodness sake Mered; if you want to send a message about how upset you are about the atrocity-to-an-intelligent-mind that is "vanilla balance", play something better.

and since when does balanced awesome exclude/not allow experimental behavior and testing stuff out before it gets its own whole dedicated content?

I usually play rcbm when I want to have fun, and vanilla out of habit.

You're a masochist.

It excludes skipping the "would this alter gameplay in a significant way" and the "will this overwrite other unit roles" process. Seriously. I'm all for imaginative and awesome ideas, they just need vetted first.....

soooo and we don´t do vettings with the current doxpatch?

It is completely impossible to create a strategy game that will not create some kind of "meta." It's not just impractical, it is impossible by definition because there will be some way to describe trends in the game, and whatever description you might make would be called that game's "meta."

Instead we should be trying to make an interesting meta. A meta that has a lot of contingencies and interesting choices and permutations. Rather than a simple meta like "always X" (dominant strategy; e.g. broken game) or "do X, Y, or Z, and which you pick doesn't really matter" (random distribution; e.g. rock-paper-scissors).



We need there to be reasons why players would do certain things as opposed to certain other things. Unlike the current state, where you basically make economy at the fastest possible rate, and then units so that you have way more forces than the enemy does.

The fact that any particular unit is the flavor of the week to build en masse is the symptom, not the root problem. Building ridiculous numbers of Dox and blobbing them at the enemy isn't even really a problem with the Dox.

We do definitely want large numbers of units. But a single massive blob is actually not that much of an improvement over a single massive unit. Instead we want lots of groups in different places, and with interesting choices about which kinds of units to put where. Where two players' little groups will fight, and where there are options for how to proceed for both sides. Such as retreating, pulling reinforcements from another group, redirecting supporting units like artillery or air support, and so on.

A large number of smaller skirmishes on an ongoing basis is far better than lots of inactivity followed by two giant blobs being fully committed immediately, and the resulting battle having relatively few choices for how to fight it, apart from just committing everything you have as rapidly as possible.



I get the impression that Uber may have misunderstood what a lot of us meant by an "economy-focused game." The act of building economy is not what we meant to focus on. The mere act of building the economy structures is not that interesting, and doing those actions a lot does not make for a very strategic game. TA players didn't enjoy the economic aspect of TA because of the act of building mexes and solar panels.

What we meant was that the economy a huge strategic concern. Every move the player makes, every battle fought, has economic importance. Such as winning a battle over a key piece of territory would give you control over a couple more mexes which would strengthen your economy. Choosing how risky you want to be, how much defense to build on mexes knowing that enemy raiders are about. Building too little leaves you vulnerable to raiders. Building too much leaves you vulnerable to someone else skipping that expense. How aggressive you want to be in building raiders of your own, knowing those raiders have to do economic damage to justify not spending that metal on mexes or energy.


Regardless of the balance of the Dox or any other unit, the problem is that the economy grows so rapidly that it outgrows the time scale of all tactical events. And that the game's tactics are blob warfare of the first degree. These two issues need to be addressed in that order before we can even discuss whether Dox are overpowered.

if you dont want to grow the eco too fast play with a lower range of available mexxes .... basic math
same with reclaim importance ... the more mexxes available the less neccesary reclaim wars would be ... same with naval the more water there is the more useful ships can be ... make well mixed planets and systems with apropried size ... imho players play too much on moneymaps ...

inb4 doxes get kneecapped...

boom, @ledarsi nailed it on the topic of meta!