Risk vs Reward

I very much agree with this.

I miss massive armies of Ants. Or massive army clashes of any kind for that matter.

I don't post very often, but this time I feel the need to since this whining about tiers is really starting to grate on my nerves (but to heck with it because im going to contribute anyway". I have to fully agree with everything emraldis has said so far, especially with the two points from this post. If I wanted a game like what some of you are pushing for I would go play starcraft. One of the major points that many people here seem to use for the T2 shouldnt be any better than T1 argument is "It will just turn into a race to T2". This argument is simply stupid in my opinion. If we didnt have a T2 then I could just as easily argue that it will just turn into a "Who can spam more of this unit fest". I'm not going to say that T2 isnt a bit OP at the moment though. But I fear that some VERY vocal people in this community are pushing for this game to become more and more like starcraft(And I will go into a rage if this happens).

T2 brings many positive things to the game as well, Such as a further variety of units (Variety is always good in my opinion) and gives the playsers something to work towards as well. If everything cost about the same amount and existed in the same tier, then variety would suffer, Fighting just to be able to spam more would become more of a thing and the game would become more limited in the long run. If you allow the enemy to build up an economy to get to T2 then it is all YOUR FAULT. You should have focused on raiding the enemys economy more so that they arent able to get to the T2 point, and even when they get to T2 it would take a while for them to produce a half decent amount of units and you should be trying to destroy their factory. If the enemy get that far ahead of you that you cant fight back well then you did something wrong and you should be refining your strategy for the future.

If it wasn't clear in this post, I am in full support of a Tier system (As long as its not super OP and impossible to fight against) since as mentioned before it brings more strategy, more objectives and more variety to the game. Variety is what makes and RTS fun for me, and through the removal of thinks like Tiers and not the mention experimentals/megabots (which have been ousted from the game) is a strike against variety.

I have fully taken the posts of others into consideration and am open minded to any criticisms or opinions.

This is only my opinion and I hope it does not come across as an attack or anything like that.

P.S
Sorry for the wall of text

Have any of you played Zero-K? I'd suggest playing it before continuing this discussion.

It gives you the option to build everything at the start, and you don't find any issues with it for several reasons, chief among them being that there's only one MEX type. Really shapes how you play.

This is also a matter of transport balance. In TA you could also get Atlases quite cheaply and easily but they accelerated very slowly without actually having a low top speed, they required to descend to unload and were slower than fighters. Transporting units had to be done with great care as units would take considerable time to actually unload.
In PA transports accelerate super quickly, have the same speed as fighters and unload units in an instant. Besides that they promote a lot of micro and twitch micromanagement, they almost only see one usage in PA and that is to drop Vanguards on top of commanders and inside the base of the enemy. What is the desired role of the transports?

If advanced tech replaces basic units just by their costeffectiveness without any real drawbacks except the initial investment to get advanced tech, there isn't a choice of going advanced on big maps. You simply have to do it as basic tech is unlikely to be able to have any substantial impact before advanced tech is fielded. Yes, there will be situations when players neither start close enough to each other for early advanced tech to be very risky or far enough from each other that advanced tech is mandatory.

If you strive for that advanced and basic should be more of a choice then one should not replace the other.
Trading different strategic choices for each other comes naturally even without locking units behind tech barriers. Zero-K comes to mind as you can make any building from the start, from light defenses, to nukes and game enders. Some units are simply inhibited by their expensive cost or niche role. If Commanders could build Halleys it wouldn't really change anything in the balance just to take an example. Although it might be a newbtrap if new players try to build it among their first buildings.
If you have focused all your production on ground forces then you are limited to how fast you can switch to airplanes or ships.
Locking units behind a tech barrier can cause interesting strategical decisions as players have to consider how they should transition to counter the enemies strategy but the focus on economic growth, map control, harassment, army presence, defence, land, sea or air control also hold similar qualitative depth.

Honestly, I don't have a problem with the goal you guys are aiming for but I'm not entirely sold on the methods you guys have tried so far. I also get what you mean about the particular method of flat balancing not being ideal but I think there are some other variants that might be worth looking at.

I know that you guys didn't want to lock in on the Basic VS Specilized when it was a big topic of discussion on the forums way back but it's not something we've seen you guys experiment with yet.

To me it seems to meet the criteria for what your looking for, you even have some control over the amount of "flat balancing" you use.

By avoiding overlap in unit roles you can provide Basic and Advanced units that still complement each other is to me a great way to avoid the issues Advanced supplanting Basic units because regardless of the overall power level of Basic and Advanced(thought I still feel the gap should not be a large one regardless) you still will have different units for different scenarios.

Like I said it's not something we've seen you guys mess with so we can't judge how familiar you are with such a system in practice.

Mike

I completely forgot about Zero-K, I played it a while back and it was pretty good(Quite like how zero-K was done).

It's a good thought experiment.

While it gives me more confidence that this will work, i feel that T1 is too "bare" yet to truly stand up and face T2. I think that's the issue a lot of us are worried about: that T1 is too limited to deal with the enemy's availability of nukes, halleys, better units, longer range arty, and stronger towers.

Issues like T2 air >> T1 air, T2 tanks >> T1 tanks and T2 nukes >> T1 defenseless make it harder to get sold for your ideas.

not that it can't be solved. It's just that the current reward is not a "reward" but an absolute must to survive, or risk getting nuked, bombarded from afar, having your armies blown up with minimal enemy losses etc.

It's T2's combination of a LOT more power & variety with the massively reduced risk for engagement with T2 technology that makes it a win/lose techup.

This is actually a good point.

In order for it to work (giving the players a real choice, or to say better viable options outside responding to T2 with T2), T1 should be able to counter T2, at least at some degree.

It might be as simple as allowing T1 fabbricators to build Anti-nukes, and to better balance Air. Or to enable the Commander to build something he only can build to soften up the spread between T1 and T2 eco.

What would be other ways to create this risk-reward balance if not between the tiers? What rewards do we have in the game as it stands? (take the nuke as an example) Are there ways to make these rewards more risky? (Maybe a nuke plant twice the size it is today would be very much more sensitive to bombers? Maybe a slight increase of t1 bomber dmg vs buildings would allow them to be a counter even if you didn't have t2 yet?)

I don't what would be best and i too like asking questions. I just thought that maybe we shouldn't limit this search of a nice balance between risk and reward to the relationship between tiers, perhaps it can be found in more ways / places / relationships?

I think the point meta is getting at though (and the key to these balance changes), is that the huge cost of the proposed T2 means that we're moving for a comparison of 1 x T2 tank against 3 x t1 to 1 x T2 tank against 12 x T1 for the same cost. The key here is that- the specs of each tanks are still the same, 1 v 1 the T2 tank is still *much* better, but it's if anything *less efficient* metal wise compared to the number of T1 tanks you will now have.

That's the point of the cost increase- it doesn't really matter if tank A is better than tank B- it's all got to be considered in terms of cost. Currently T2 is better and more cost effective so I agree- the balance right now massively promotes T2. The new changes however suggest to be moving the game towards what we all want where T2 becomes a supplement to T1 not a replacement. In this case it's probably going to be most efficient to build hordes of T1, then pad them out with vanguards up front and shellers or Gil-E for support.

Where T2 will become more important is for accessing units you don't have at T1- specifically the long range stuff, gunships and transports. Given the changes I think it may invalidate levellers and Slammers though somewhat- as if you can have more cheaper units that are better overall, you'd be better using your T2 production time on things you don't have.

The only thing I think I'd do differently is that I wouldn't increase the metal output of T2 mex much if at all from what they do now. That would make holding territory a prerequisite to be able to produce any large amount of T2 (although it wouldn't preclude producing small amounts of carefully chosen units for specific tasks which I think would be good).

Well as noted by metabolical himself, a T2 army can be beaten by a T1 army in their recent test.

That's a good thing. T1 can be relevant via numbers. However, T2 isn't just about more power, but also things it has no answer to. Nuking isn't a problem if you're out of range. Except, nuking from orbit covers the entire planet.

What Uber may be attempting is more like SupCom2, where you were forced to pick a strategy and work it out or fall behind massively. In this case, it's either stay in T1 (maybe the T2 rush makes the orbital rush impossible?) and make extensive use of T1.5 orbital to ensure your can compete with nukes etc.

I think some kind of orbital AntiNuke sattelite (or nuke redirector?) is imperative for T1 surviving in case of multi-planet starts.

I'm really interested in playing this balance build. Because it sounds pretty good the way you put it Basic should be able to win from advanced because of their cheapness and numbers, advanced should be risky to set up but when you have strong T2 economy you should be able to win the game if the other player hasn't reached advanced yet. It then is the other player's own fault that he / she didn't upgrade or ruin your advances by attacking your economy.
And about not being able to antinuke, when you see the other player go T2, you should as well, when you see the other player building nukes, you should build antinukes. Antinukes are cheaper now so should be done a lot more quickly.

I'm sure it is going in the right direction and I bet this game is going to be even more awesome!!

Now that's what I wanted to see. I think you explained well, what the main concern with the new advanced tier is. If you expand enough, and raid your opponent, and scout as often as possible, you won't have problems with advanced rushes at all. I think this is the right direction we're heading to in my opinion.

This is my main concern, really. Because gaining an economic advantage actually reinforces that advantage while at the same time making it harder to counter (because defending is easier with more resources). To some degree, you want this - this is a game, after all, and there needs to be a winner. But it is also a slippery slope, and the bigger the jump in resource production between the tiers, the more pronounced this slope will be, and the shorter reaction window you have to your opponents and vice versa.

An interesting question to discuss would be "What is the desired time window for a player to tech up after their opponent has, after which the chances of winning start to fall significantly (specifically as a result of the economic advantage)?". Or in other words, just how much should who techs their economy up first be a factor in who wins the game, and where does PA currently sit in comparison?

Statements like this actually imply that it's a race to get there and the one that does wins. I would prefer the emphasis not be on simply getting there/preventing others from getting there (which implies it's a significant, game-winning advantage to do so, at least to some degree), but rather what you do with it when you get there.

The units right now are balanced fine. T1 to t2. With the exception of vanguards shellers and peregrines needing a nerf and slammers needing a buff. The rest works good enough.


The main problems are the turrets and the output from t2 mex. Sort this out and see how the game plays. Don't go all Hail Mary and change 20 things creating more problems.

The most memorable statement i got off a youtube video (yes, it's possible) was this: (SC2)

Someone asked, "my opponent built 20 Carriers, how do i even counter this?"
To which the response was "if you allowed your opponent to build 20 carriers, you already lost".


True, if you allow your opponent to freely tech-up and leave him alone, he can get all sorts of toys to destroy you in 20 ways.

But the problem is that a nuke can be defended by T2 tanks and T2 towers and T2 AA and T2 artillery and kick T1 ***. At some point you run into physical problems with a massive T1 army.

Proposal:

Distinguish two paths:

• A T2 rush
• A T1.5 Orbital play field.

In essence, Orbital acts as a second set of "variety" and "power" units that offset the enemy's capacity to build T2 defences. Nukes can be countered not by anti-nukes but by blasting the nuke launcher from orbit.
T2 armies can be stopped with a combo of Anchors and T1 armies. Avengers can be built to establish a high-ground.

In essence, Orbital is a planetary versatility and T2 is a dedication to a planet.

How do you build Anti-Nukes if you do not have T2?

Assuming you've invested in expanding through T1, and assuming T1 should be able to compete against T2 by numbers, we already see that there is an issue related to Nukes.

As soon as you spot your enemy building the first Nuke, you should change your strategy, and it may take way too long for you to adapt.

In fact, first you need to advance into T2 (which might stall your eco and slow down your Factories). Then you can build your first T2 Fabbricator, then you have to upgrade at least one Max to t2, and build 1 T2 Power Gen. Then, if you haven't been nukes multiple times already, you can finally start building your Anti-Nuke.

I'm afraid this aspect may need some little tweaks.

Proposal: Anti-nukes could be moved to T1. Or the Commander could shot down Nukes himself.

Yes, and also not.

An elegant way to solve a problem in a strategy game is to keep the door open to multiple options. So that players will use what's at their disposal in multiple ways.

An inelegant way is to give players one or few solutions to win. Then the game will be a bit boring.

It's difficult to talk about one change if others don't occur. If units are useful throughout the game but t2 resources are better then the nuke is not a bad option. If t2 resources get a nerf also then nuke is a bad option against a guy going heavy t1.

But we're now heading the direction that T1 can get nuked/arty'd from afar.

actually, it wouldn't require much of a change, as we're already on that path. It would simply require a bit more emphasis.

An orbital Anti-nuke can be a great way of getting anti-nukes without the need for T2 economy.

If you are going to make the meta tier, why not just make it so that tier 1 infrastructure can be upgraded towards the meta tier?

There are two way research advancement can be handled.

The first is essentially Rise of Nations, say from Industrial Age to the Advanced, or Ancient Age to Medieval.. You progress through the Basic Age, transition into the Advanced Age, and then into the Meta Age. Nothing you ever advance in greatly increases your unit roster, it just increases the effectiveness of your units, so you can handle fighting against barbarians better.

I.e the entire unit roster is available in the Basic Age. Increasing in Age just increases your efficiency vs someone who has not increased in age.

This is basically what SupCom offered.

On the other hand, you have games like Sins and StarCraft, where there are two branches of tech advancement. One branch increases the efficiency of your units, while the other increases your unit roster.


Thirdly, there's Planetary Annihilations current system, which is a hybrid of both, with the infrastructure of a Sins/Starcraft style, and yet the approach of a Rise of Nations style.

Personally, I think if PA is going to take the approach of Rise of Nations, it should have upgradeable factories.