All the problems with the current balance(its not all bad)

You missed the whole point. Uber wants the dox to be a raider. Dedicated raiders have limited use late game. The dox doesn't fit into that category currently.

What changes to air? There were none. It behaves the exact same as last patch.

*shrug* Why does there have to be a meta? Can't we all be equal at one point? I think booms should actually be useful, not *meh*. If it's too much, fine. Change it back,

Fair enough. I haven't really used them much or studied their problems. I just have noticed a distinct lack of them in my games.

Air gets shredded by dox in late game, and then those dox turn around and have 100% DPS against a land target. No other unit in the game can do this, and it's really, really out of place. It makes Dox the most useful unit in the game. Let's not.

L.O.L.

No. No it's not. And I ain't going to argue the point - it's quite universal. Just look up the threads on the forums. Do the research.

Ad hominem attacks have no place here. Take them somewhere else.
I'm going by what Uber has said and done - not by what my personal preferences are. They don't care what my opinions are anyway. I could have not posted this and nothing different would have happened. T2 Naval is meant to rule the seas. If that incentive is taken away by slammers, I'll stay as far away from water as possible. I personally liked it when Naval beat Land - it meant lakes actually had meaning, instead of just another obstacle to go around/through.

L2P issue? You are toeing a line you don't wanna cross.

I daresay that I'm one of the best orbital players in this community. And from my experience, it is strategically stale - I feel like a stinkin' machine doing the motions, instead of thinking through my options and choosing the best one.

I don't need detailed arguments and reasoning, though I could present them if I did need to. YOU need to present an argument as to why the hell you think orbital is exciting and interesting.

Yet again, your orbital ignorance rears it's obvious and smirking face. The max limit for gas giants is 2000. The smallest is 1000. And what pathing? The only issue with avengers is their stackiness and mechanics. How the hell can you have pathing issues on a planet with no obstacles???

Have you even built a jig? Have you ever been alone on a gas giant with no other base?

Bombers are slightly too strong? What? What does that even mean?

T1 gameplay is diverse, sure. Bombers don't contribute. The nerfing of Dox did. And only slightly. And naval doesn't shred land like it used to back in beta, so it will still be completely and utterly useless.

Who the hell cares about 1v1s?! They only represent at most 10% of the game's scenarios as a whole. Why are we judging every balance change solely based on 1v1s?!

My friend 1v1 is actualy a decent way to test/balance the core units of a game believe me, not the whole game but the core units, and ways to open a game yes.

Saw that one coming .
I kinda response baited clopse but instead you responded.

Well sadly i think we are all agreeing to disagree but you claiming that t1 gameplay is diverse and dynamic is pushing it a bit to far. Specialy after you yourself posted a thread complaining about DOX not so loong ago.

You're insane. Orbital is very plain. It's basically spam Avengers, and orbital fabbers, build lots of Jigs and Anchors and try to out fab a teleporter. I know quite a few people who think that orbital is stale. You may disagree, but there isn't a whole lot of support for your side.

As a side note to the "l2p" argument you provided: if the majority can't learn it easily, it's not intuitive enough for being such a core component of the game. Why should I have to spend significantly more time learning that core component than any other layer? Advanced strategies are just that: advanced, orbital should not fall into that category when it is the only means to go to another planet, it should be just as easy to play as air is. Air isn't particularly stale; orbital should not be stale either.

(Also, don't attack the soundness of an argument without providing a counter-argument.)

Oh, storage on the Jigs is absurd. Why would we need the storage if we're going to spend it anyways? If it was cut to 0, it wouldn't make an effective difference in the long run. Storage can only power an economy for so long, and when it runs out, you need to increase income (or decrease production), which is not related to storage.

Dox are actually OK in some circumstances. In a game where there is a reasonable amount of distance between you and your opponent, I can get up enough eco to counter dox with tanks before the dox do any effective damage. They're great for rushing and if you're close to your opponent, but they can very easily be kited (particularly with radar coverage) and tanks are better since they have more range and health.

@mered4
You post alot of garbage. All i'm going to say is this - actually play the patch and try to open your eyes. With respect, most of your points are not even worth responding to because there is so much of an information gap.

And quit it with the ad hominem straw man. You really want me to dig up your own numerous posts complaining about t2 obsoleting t1? I don't want to do this, so let's cut past the bs. What do you suppose was one of the main stated objectives of RCBM that you supported?

@scifi99
I complained about dox being op because hey guess what, they were op at the time. I'm not complaining about dox being op now because hey guess what, dox arn't op right now for reasons I and others clearly explained. How does such simple logic escape you?

@websterx01
Like i said, this is a l2p issue and I certainly hope uber doesn't listen to this shallow perspective like they did with the vanguard, which is now a lump of useless overnerfed crap.

What is the purpose of orbital? It is a supporting sphere that bridges planetary combat. It defends against orbital invasion, it initiates orbital invasion, and recently it allows additional resources which are then channeled back into the first two objectives. It is centered around the interaction of independently discrete land spheres.

If you are actually playing the game to it's potential so that it is not a l2p issue, neither player can use their resources to satisfy all three objectives. There are interesting tradeoffs and resource allocation decisions to be made.

Orbital is not just about each player building 90000 avengers and slugging it out. If you divert too many resources to orbital, say hello to the incoming nuke, to the incoming halley, or the incoming death laser. If you are getting orbital stalemates, it is 100% either because of a l2p issue or a system design issue. Neither of these are specific to orbital gameplay.

Now that I have had time to play with them.

I really, really like the dox.

Why? Its infantry, good massed up infantry. They can be supported by anything in the game, and they become so much better.


The dox is the bread and butter of my army's now, supported by infernos, they storm bases, supported by tanks they destroy armys, supported by grenadiers they rage against the establishment, supported by booms they shoot at the holes made, supported by....

You get it.

I frigging love the dox, it's the peewee I always wanted.

I'm pretty sure Mered has many valid points the balance is off and needs tweaking, and I for one disagree with many of the ways Mered wants to fix it. So to say to actually play the build as if everything he sais is all of a sudden invalid is kinda a **** move.

It's perfectly reasonable to ask someone to play the patch so that they are basing their conclusions off solid information. Just read his post and you'll see he hasn't understood the current patch yet. "Dox doesn't fit into role of raider". "no changes to bomber".

How is this a shitty move.

Actually the patch didn't change much in the first place, see how grenadiers are still pointless, naval is still broken etc

You clearly arn't following the reply chain. Don't take my words out of context

Elodea, your the only one throwing around ad hominem's. Me pointing out that you aren't using logic is not a straw man.

My posts are worthless, eh?
No one's posts are worthless. There is a grain of truth behind every opinion or idea.

If you are trying to call me a hypocrite, you can do it to my face on Teamspeak. Or in person. I don't care. I'll still politely explain that I adjusted my perspective, and decided to jump on Uber's balance bandwagon. I want vanilla to be the best it can be, no matter how flawed it may or may not end up being in the end. Uber said play ball, and instead of boycotting the game, I threw on my uniform and started testing the edges.

Elodea, the base reason your entire post is invalid is because it assumes that we will simply take your word as gold because you rank #1 on the ladder. Why the hell does it matter if you win all the time? There is a lesson to be learned in losing, too.

I haven't played the game to it's full potential? Excuse me.

Who died and left you in charge? Why don't you look at PAStats? You'll notice that I'm number 7 on that list.

I wonder why.....

Which is why we discuss this - who the hell cares if, in the end, I'm wrong and you're right, or vice versa. Either way, we'll have made the game better for it. The logical discussion of the premises is exactly why I'm here. If you respect my opinion, we can do business. By default, I'll respect yours, because I'm young. I know very little about life. Thus, I need to learn.
@elodea
If my opinion is a piece of crap, instead of exploding in my face, why don't you just explain to me in a calm, cool, and collected manner why I'm wrong? It would be so much more constructive.

+1

Wow this thread went off topic fast though

It's still on topic - technically, we are still discussing issues with balance.

We do that a lot here.

PA is so badly balanced. I build so many tanks but then the enemy kills me with bombers. Wow, who designed this game. It's so stale.

Please uber. I want you to take this post seriously because in every post there is a grain of truth

Now your just being a ****, really...

And to prove Mereds point, the truth here is that the balance requires the player to adapt to weaknesses of the unit which would be pointed out by someone else rebutted how that was "bad balance" thus allowing the player to grow as a player.

Some posts are stupid, but that doesn't mean they aren't worth something, such as in this case a chance to be called out.

Am i really? Or am i just someone who doesn't understand how to play the game yet? Hrm...

If you want to attack my arguement, then you attack the logic. You don't mud smear.

*I also love how everyone has this negative connotation about the term l2p. Please. Gamer's have such sensitive egos.

Reread the post tis edit ninj'd, still my point stands it was wrong of you to plain lash out at someones opinion in the way you did.

Arrogance does not belong in a rational discussion. That applies to both you, and mered4; stop looking at yourself as if you are authorities on anything here, being an authority does not automatically make you right, though neither does it make your point any less sound.

Being rude isn't necessary, come on.

Just because you are good at 1v1 does not mean you are king at this game. Please stop acting as if you are.

Learning to play the game shouldn't be so difficult. It's a game after all. Not only that, but the game isn't based around two players, or even two teams. It could be 10 players, or 5 teams, or some weird combination of teams and players, looking at the situation with the idea that it should only involve two players is not going to help the majority of the games which are not two teams against one-another.

How many orbital games have you played? Orbital has changed very little over the past few weeks and months, excluding the Annihilaser. The orbital game very much revolves around building more combat units, Avengers, and slugging it out to control an orbital sphere, the same way you would on the ground, only in this case, there is exactly one mobile combat unit at our disposal. It's like playing the ground game with just Dox, a double laser turret, and static bombers.

System design is specific to orbital game-play, as it affects directly whether orbital matters, what orbital can achieve and so on. If I create a system with one Earth planet and 10 Gas Giants, orbital game-play is different than if I had 10 Earth planets and 1 Gas Giant-- a direct relationship.

Then how about be rephrase it to be something that doesn't have a negative connotation? Googling "l2p" results in primarily negative uses. The first 3 are purely negative, and result 5 defines it as an insult.

Me right now