Game isn't imbalanced, current balance just isn't fun.

Why do you even bother posting? If you really wanted a discussion you could be clear and precise rather than alluding to things in such an incredibly arrogant manner.

Did you just say that you're better/smarter than everybody on this forums ??? (Or is this just me reading this wrong, i really hope so)

Respect (for other people) is this first step to more communication and a more useful constructive forum, just saying.

This isn't a discussion @ZaphodX, the game isn't balanced.

It also isn't fun for me personally, but that's more of a subjective opinion than fact. However the reverse is also true and calling the game "fun" is also a very subjective assessment.

Balance though? That's measurable. The game is so skewed in favour of utilising just a handful of combat units in almost any matchup, on any planet and also heavily favours people with higher APM. Since there is no tactical or strategic depth to speak of, and that he who clicks the most will generally win, I find the game to be completely imbalanced in favour of a tiny selection of players and units.

---

As to why I do bother to post, (which is what I assume you meant with your butchering of grammar there... seriously "why don't you even bother posting" is the complete opposite of what you're intending to ask,) the reason is simple; I get a kick out of it. Sue me.

@nanolathe

Balance is terribly subjective, to say otherwise is hilarious to me, considering there are multiple views on how balance should be. Statera, RCBM, ModX, Orbital Rebalance Mod, etc... Your opinion on what balance means/is is completely tied into what balance you find fun.

I find it very ironic that you'd say that having units not be viable all the time is a bad thing, considering I thought you wanted specialized t2, which implies that t2 units would have a niche role; be well in one area and not the best at the majority of others. A tank could be very good at taking out a unit with a large amount of health, a "tank hunter", yet easily be overwhelmed by a group of weak units. Clearly that means it's not viable "all the time" which must mean balance is incorrect. By your definition, the only balanced game would be one with both symmetrical factions, and with strictly generalistic units. IE: Dox clones.

Another thing I find funny about you, you demand respect from the devs, as your balance paradigm must *clearly be better*, yet give them no respect at all. You can't honestly expect people to respect you when you don't respect them, right?

I'm sorry, but after having what amounts to a smear campaign waged against me by Brad I don't offer my respect to the Uber developers unconditionally any more. Call me bitter if you like, I don't mind.

---

As to the rest of your comment, I can only assume that you've misinterpreted what I've said at some point. All units do not need to be viable at all times. They should be viable at their intended role however, and not overshadow other units outside of that role. This means that units are generally not "wasted assets", nor are they a "trap" for new players. If a unit is touted as performing a certain role, yet fail to perform at it, and are overshadowed by other units that shouldn't be outperforming them, then the balance of the units is broken.

The current balance shows multiple instances of units over-performing in not only their intended role, but completely overshadowing other units that are intended to be better at certain roles. Other units are worthless to the point of obsolescence; the opposite problem. They perform poorly at their intended role.

RCBM avoids these extremes of ubiquitous overshadowing and obsolescence for the vast majority, if not the entirety of its unit roster. I'm pretty sure that anyone with any degree of objectivity would see that.

I personally think that is a bit childish way of doing it. You feel disrespected so you just disrespect them back? Is that going to solve anything? I just don't understand.

It's like you still don't understand what everyone else is talking about. You don't seem to be able to differentiate between the concepts of design, balance, and skill curves, which is why I no longer hold much credibility to your 'balance' opinions.

Just listen to the silliness that you're posting. The game is apparently imbalanced because it favours certain groups of people, even though everyone is given the same starting conditions due to perfectly symmetrical factions. Truly laughable. Balance is not about trying to mitigate for the specific and unique differences players bring to the table. What is this? Communist Russia?

It's like you totally missed the point of ranked automatching. Are you going to artificially hard limit everyone's allowed inputs to 1 apm (Or lets be honest, it'll be what your own comfortable apm is since you are the golden benchmark of strategy and tactics). Is that really 'balance', or is that 'i want to choose who gets rewarded and for what'.

A fast paced game does not mean there is no tactical or strategic depth. Pacing is simply a measure of how quickly an individual is required to process relevant information. Is a chess player with 200 IQ less strategic and tactical than a 100 IQ chess player just because he/she is able to perform considered moves so much faster?

What was that about spreading wildly inaccurate statements? Ironic really.

As for balance between units and the game being limited to only a 'handful of units', that's the dumbest thing i ever heard. We see viable use of atleast 2 or more units from each unit type: fighter/bomber, dox/boombot, tank/inferno/spinner. Not counting the scout and fabber units, that is literally 90% of all available t1 units. The only t1 unit not used is grenadier.

As for t2 units, they are all balanced metal for power with the exception of the vanguard and t2 air. And even then, t2 air is still a powerful choice due to the t2 air fabber. The problem here is not balance between units at all, but t2 factory opportunity cost, economic pacing, and system design/map size.

Frankly, what's really happening here is the game is too fast for you as an individual. Or you are over-estimating your own skill and trying to compare outside the range that you should be. This is why it seems like there is nothing more than 'fast clicking', because you're not able to keep up with the pace and understand what's going on. If you seriously think the apm level of the pa community (myself included) is anywhere near fast, then I gotta laugh at that notion.

This actually wouldn't be too surprising to me when you consider both how painfully slow the RCBM snoozefest is, and your seeming inability here to comprehend the OP.

Stop masquerading what are clearly your own opinions about how other people should play as 'balance' . It's really offputting.

It's exactly the same problem, just flipped around. No one gives a flying **** if Uber disrespects me however, and they are not held to account for their behaviour. I however am being "called out" by unconditional supporters of Uber as if I was the one doing something wrong in the first place, which I was not.

Apologies, but I'm not going to just turn the other cheek or support Uberent's actions if they fail to even give me the basic decency of a baseline level of respect.

---

And I think that a game shouldn't be designed to appeal and cater to only a single style of play, so I think it's fitting that I no longer think much of your input on the matter, since we are apparently diametrically opposed as to what we find fun, fair and balanced in a game.

No-one care about your hurt feelings because you're not making the game.

This was why games in the past had a "speed" setting in the gameplay options, because everyone likes to play at their own pace.

That is correct.

However, it is another thing entirely to say the game is imbalanced, has no depth, and is nothing more than a click fest.

Kind of on topic:

I think there needs to more emphasis on "fun" with unit interactions in PA. Having to micro the hell out of every single individual bomber to stop it getting shot down by frolicking Dox is a pain in the arse. Not fun. The emphasis on fun should be done alongside balance changes as they are so intertwined. I'm afraid Uber may be looking at balance right now, and not the fun so much, because everyone is complaining about the balance being wonky, that all Uber want to do is fix what's already here to shut people up.

Although earlier I said the balance wasn't fun, I must say that I played a 2v2v2 tonight on a large metal planet that was quite a bit of fun and felt well balanced. Everyone was at a similar skill level. Dox were transitioned to tanks by around minute 5 and then we had quite a bit of bot, tank, and air play. T2 and orbital came on the field around minute 10-15 and really shifted the dynamics (I got sniped by a very nice teledrop with booms!). I think what is needed really is tweaks to the balance and maybe a few new units to make the game just a touch less rock papers scissors.

I think what Uber did to you was shitty. But those people are gone now and it is pretty far in the past. I have to say it is time to move on to better things, one way or another. What good does all this bitterness do? You certainly are not here for constructive debate.

Imagine someone with an opinion being lambasted and bullied by someone who disagrees with them, to the point that no one takes you seriously in meetings.
That's basically what happened. Imho, he's still unnecessarily cynical, but he has every right to feel the way he does.

Can't agree more.

Oh, it's very little more than that. I don't even have to try in FFAs any more. It's very binary - either I win in a landslide, or I get my *** handed to me because 3-4 people attacked me at once. In 1v1s, I'm either horribly outmatched or completely dominant. I've only played one game where it felt like competition - and that was against Klovian. The upside - I've become much better at micro. The downside - my macro game is lacking significantly. And it's painful.

Nanolathe knows far more about those subjects than you could ever hope to know, Elodea. The man helped rebuild and re-imagine PA in RCBM, and he did a smashing good job. Stop slandering.

it doesn't favor certain people. This isn't personal. Nanolathe has had the same opinions for two years.

The point of ranking is to give people a reason to stick around after learning the game mechanics and exhausting the AI. You also seem to have completely missed the point of mitigating micro - it forces players to think beyond the reflex. And yes, it is balance - a balance that discourages micro and encourages more tactics and more strategic thought. Chess, for example, is all about the macro. Competitive Chess is about doing the same thought in less time.

No, they can process the information faster and in a more logical manner. That shouldn't completely invalidate the IQ 100 player - he might have some tricks up his sleeve. That's why this game can be snipey - it gives the slower, less skilled player a chance to win.

Yes. Ironic. ^.^

This is the most wildly inaccurate statement I've heard today. I don't feel like explaining why, but I will anyway.

In the average 1v1, the only offensive units used are dox, booms, bombers + hummingbirds, Ants, and maybe Spinners. No Naval. This is the average 1v1 on the Duelist map, which is currently the most popular ranked map.
Even on the Zaphod system this holds true. Hell, most systems this holds true.

T2 is never used in 1v1s at higher levels of play. NEVER. That's at least half the unit roster, right there.
Compared to the Community UberBalance, or RCBM, the current vanilla balance falls woefully short in the unit diversity and variety category. Just compare some of the replays.

Except that T2 units are mostly just bland range and damage upgrades to the current units.

Otherwise, you are correct. T2 is just too expensive.

The problem isn't the game isn't that its too fast. It's that the gameplay is based on reflex, not on brains. This is an RTS, not Starcraft. No one thinks the apm level is fast compared to say, Starcraft. I mean, come on. No one thinks that in this community.

Um. RCBM actually plays much quicker than Vanilla. This just tells me how much you haven't played it.

Ditto. Look in the mirror.

@mered4

RCBM is quite a bit slower than vanilla, and that's how Nanolathe (and the rest of the team I assume) wanted it, which is completely fine. If it's not slow then Nano must not have reached one of his goals, as he even liked the post saying that older games had speed multipliers just for this reason.

Oh.....ok then.

Weird fighty thread of opinions, speculation, drama and like, a lot of hurt feelings.

Um, yeah.




Is the game fun? I find it fun.

Could the game be funner? Yes.

How is it not max fun? Humm, I like the current planes, tanks and robots, but boats feel un-fun, as do the satellites.

How could it be made more fun? I feel like the current balance make it so that one mistake can cost you an entire game, im not a big fan of that.

Are mods funner then vanilla? Yes, there is more variety in mods, and more possibility's.

Should such mods be integrated into vanilla? Personally? No, or at least never completely, vanilla has some subjective stuff about it, but some of that stuff people have come to love, like how map crossing artillery, and experimentals in supcom is part of the charm of supcom.

Should fun come before balance? At the risk of being lynched, yes, yes it kinda should.

How much should fun come before balance? Honestly, I don't know how to answer that with respect to the different players of the game.

Let me amend my statement:
The Team Games progress through the Early Game much quicker than Vanilla does, while 1v1s play slower, and FFAs also play much faster.

What fails to be said every time though, is that "someone" in this case was Uber first. Dev reactions to some people were a direct result of the way they were treated by them at the time, not the other way around as is being claimed.

Nano believes, and has stated in the past, that he doesn't care how hostile a comment is, it's the information/point that matters. He fails to see that if you are hostile (ie., disrespectful) to people, they will be hostile back, and this will continue to be a problem until he takes into consideration how he says things, and not just what he says.

As I had thought, ever since I've seen Nano on the forums he's been very cynical and frankly a bit rude.