Discussion on T1/T2 balance in todays live stream

I tuned in late but what I understood was (correct me if I'm wrong):

1) A lot of T2 will remain to be a direct upgrade of T1
2) What needs balancing is how long the T1 phase and the overall match should be roughly

The T1 phase of the match should be the entire match.

T2 should be a late game boost when you run out of room to expand and T2 units should be specialists that you add to an army, rather than make up an entire army out of.

Bring back the massive armies of early beta!

you can't give t2 economy a pass, though.

We aren't.

The problem is not an issue of balance - it's an issue of thought.

The devs are looking at this with different constants. Namely, the constant of a phasing OUT of t1 units.

I don't agree with this philosophy, but I am interested to see if it will work. I'd love for the devs to understand where we are coming from, but I don't think they do.

No, it shouldn't.

There should to be progression in the game, and for that progression to take place, at some point there needs to be a T2 phase.
I'm not saying that T1 should be illegitimate at any point, but I am saying that in order for there to be any amount of diversity in this game, there needs to be a point where stronger units come out and more eco gets produced.

HOW-EVER.
There are two issues with this:
Issue #1: T2 can be reached WAY too quickly and Uber has remedied that to a certain extent
Issue #2: T2 can be reached WAY too easily, this is the issue that Uber has not fixed yet and this is the bigger of the two issues, and now I'll try explain why.

Currently, as it sits in the PTE build, which is roughly what can be expected in future balance builds, just as an example, the T2 bot factory takes 7000 metal.
As we all know, a bot fabber at 100% efficiency can construct a T2 factory in 700 seconds (10 m/s, 1000 e/s)
This, in my mind, is a pretty reasonable time for a game of this scale.

Problems come up when the number of fabbers rises.
4 fabbers can bring up a T2 factory in just under 3 minutes.
That is all levels of insane, considering an income of 40 m/s and 4000 e/s, even with a commander constructing, is not very difficult to achieve.
And this is the underlying problem with T1 units.
Theoretically, it's perfectly possible to win a game by using a T1 factory to build 7 engineers, 2 for expanding, 1 to help the commander, and 4 to build a T2 factory in just under 3 minutes. After that the T1 factory can never be used again.

But, of course, the million dollar question here is how do you fix this?
There are a number of ways, here are a few I've seen/thought up.

#1: Remove assisting. ENTIRELY.
Okay, let's be real here, this is never going to happen, despite it being the easiest and cheapest way to balance a mechanic that is incredibly broken.

#2: Diminishing returns
You've already made a thread on this so I don't think I need to go into too much detail here. Personally I don't think it'd as successful as simply removing assisting, but I could be wrong.

#3: Remove T2 economy ENTIRELY.
I've seen a lot of people suggest the removal of the T2 mex, but I reply to that with "Remove both or remove none."

#4: Make fabbers less energy efficient.
This is something Uber is actually trying out in the PTE and I'm not sure it works that well to be honest.

And last up, #5: Increase costs and lower metal usage.
As it states, but this would only half fix the problem and make things require more engineers.

Okay, am I the only person here who remembers that Beta was just as broken?
Seriously?
Beta's gameplay came to a GRINDING halt the second someone brought out levellers, levellers were the vanguards of today, impossible to stop and able to carve straight through to a commander in no time.
Not to mention nukes ruled the battlefield just as much as they do today.

Why does progression need to be measured in how many upgraded Mexes and "Ant-2.0"s you have on the field, rather than the size, disposition and composition of your armies?

I'm genuinely curious as to why so many people think that the only way to progress is by having "Better" units, rather than having more and different types of units.

Did I not say that I wanted T1 to remain legitimate throughout a game?
I must not have been clear, allow me to say more on that subject.

More units = more fun.
I'm not saying that T2 units should replace T1 units, believe me, I'm an advocate for completely removing the slammer and leveller.
However, I don't think that a progression from T1 to T2 deserves this demonization.

I'm not saying that T2 should be a game-ending super weapon, I'm saying that there should be a reason to want to tech up.
It shouldn't be "Eh, I get more units now. Cool I guess."
How does one even justify having a second tier of units if you make them completely unneeded?
Legitimizing T1 is great, but that doesn't mean T2 should become illegitimate.

Multi-tools and specific tools. What is better: a pair of pliers with built in flashlight, some screw drivers, and a small wood saw or an electric drill? The electric drill is obviously better than a screw-driver, but it can't do the things that the pliers with the built in stuff can do. The advanced would be the power drill while basic would be more like the multi-tool.

Both are desirable, both are good in different situations, neither are upgrades, neither are illegitimate.

This is how the devs SAID the game would be back in the kick-starter days. They repeated over and over that they wouldn't do the SupCom tiered style. They still have time to carry that out.

#NoUnitObsolescence2014

Well worded.

But still, making T2 specialized only is very difficult to do correctly, one overpowered unit and the entire game falls apart instantly (see: Kestrel).
I hope that in the end Uber will be able to pull it off, but I suppose we'll see.

Uber seemed to gently confirm what OP said, and I think that is probably the direction they will be maintaining at this point so close to launch. As neutrino and others hinted, that is why the server side will be moddable. If a T2 specialization type mod explodes (I'm planning to try, I'm sure a number of others are too) then maybe Uber would subsume it during an expansion or something, but I doubt the vanilla gameplay is going to have those mechanics at this point.

The current build has those.

Idk, I don't think the "leveler" is a direct upgrade, I think the peregrine can become more like the leveler, and I think at this point the game is in better shape and to mess that up would take a lot so lets hope it never gets that way.

Tbh, nobody in the current build builds only levelers. Tbh, you could still exploit leveler range and damage-burst. It isn't so bad atm, since it got better I am passive enough to see where it goes.

Also, if it never gets much worse than levelers and stuff, then a "specialization" mod would pretty much be "vanilla game removed levelers/peregrines". So if there is a lobby option with every unit in the game and whatever you highlight the server won't allow build requests for that, then the mod comes with the game.

How is that any different in a teired system? Because Advanced invalidates Basic means it's okay for there to be an OP unit? Of course not.

I will agree it's harder, but frankly it's not as hard as you're assuming, it just takes planning and lots of testing.

Mike

Um... I didn't say otherwise.

A lot of people want different things.

Some people want 1 tier, why have 2? There are pros and cons, both can be done.

Some people want no unit overlap. I believe the concept is, there is only so many roles, and miniscule roles I believe Scathis said in the live stream "don't have very distinct difference, casual players won't notice it".

To address tehtrekd specifically, I believe t1 should be ALL GAME. Now, what does t2 do then? I am okay with it giving a bit of a boost for a cost tbh, a bit of one, it could or couldn't have one but I don't mind it having one. If it has an economy boost, then technically it already has a "damage" boost, you can build more t1 tanks. You don't need a better tank in t2 because t2 eco allows more t1 tanks.

So that is what I want, but I am taking my opinion build by build, I won't at any time crucify Uber for a direction they try. They won't sink their own game obviously, they have to think something of what they put into action, might as well submit our opinion without calling anyone names.

I will always support there being a t2, it having particular roles that aren't the same tank with better values, but that doesn't mean the cost-ineffective leveler is an upgrade then, and using t1 units all game with a blend of t2 units for specific jobs.

But then why mention it at all? Your wording implies that you feel that is a reason why that particular Balance type is more difficult to do, but that doesn't mean anything if it affects both balance styles roughly equally. I mean, it's not really any easier, in fact, when working with the obsolescence style it's actually more vulnerable to the OPs units because each tier can have such a unit, the flip side is that the OP unit affects fewer other units because it is limited within it's own Tier in regards to gameplay because each tier is basically mutually exclusive in that regard.

Like I said, it is more "difficult", but not because of that.

Mike

What?
WHAT?!

Levellers were not impossible to stop. PELTERS were impossible to stop.
Combat was fluid - you had to keep moving around, confusing the enemy as to where your nerve center was. If you didn't have map control, you couldn't survive.

Units shouldn't be hard countered by defenses. HOWEVER. If they ARE hard countered, the defenses need to be expensive. VERY expensive.

Your proposals would fundamentally change the way PA is played. The changes are so drastic that it is quite difficult to predict the outcome.

Unneeded? As opposed to what? Needed? Required? Mandated as they currently are?

The idea isn't that you just get "more" units, but that you get different kinds of units. You open up more strategies, you open up more variable army compositions. You change the kind of game you are playing by building specific specialists that are very efficient at doing a very specific job on the battlefield. T1 is never invalidated completely because it is always a mainstay, your bread and butter. T2 becomes the filling to the sandwich, rather than just overpowering the whole deal.

I am not a hardcore player of PA, but I quite like this philosophy. Just playing devil's advocate here, mind.
And it's NOT a total phasing out of T1 units? At least, it doesn't look like it from here.

If you ignore the recent buff to t1 AA units, then yes, it is a phasing out. I build as many t2 factories as I can once I hit t2. I literally do NOT build any more t1 factories, unless I am producing t1 AA.

I have not seen anyone stop producing t1 army bulk up to and while getting t2, even if rushing t2, in pte anyway.

I assume that is because a single vanguard is useful if escorted in, but it is cheaper to use 8 tanks rather than 1 other vanguard as an escort. That, and the difficulty of getting 2 vanguard built when you quite possibly have 8 tanks lying around and if you do you could use 1-2 seperate vanguards with those tanks anyway.

That, and tanks getting sped up, and infernos getting a pretty big repair buff, and those t1 tanks got pretty strong this last update.

Takes like 15 tanks, 8-9 ants and 5-6 infernos, as well as 5-6 stinger and 2-6 combat fabbers, and you can almost certainly kick down any defences or defending army of equal size. Makes raiding early economy a lot more viable, now that 15 tanks are guranteed to kill some things and that t2 is not open until 8 minutes in.