[Poll] (with pretty pictures): Halving the Metal Given by T2 Metal Pumps

I was being cheeky . I know it does - it's great to be involved in the process and experience the game taking shape.

I tried putting this in General Discussion so that it'd get more votes and had to move it. Hopefully this thread will gradually accumulate views and votes.

There are many threads on this exact topic. And it's also brought up on many threads that aren't this topic. And I'll have people message me about this topic. Or talk to me on Teamspeak about this topic.

Of everyone that I've seen talk about this subject, far more support the nerfing of T2 metal than support keeping it expensive. By far.

IMO buff T1, remove T2.

For clarification, do you mean T2 entirely or T2 mexes?

Another one here for no Adv Mex, and also keep Adv unit metal costs at high levels.

I can't add options to the poll, but broadly this would come under Option 2.

If T2 has a high metal cost... and there is no T2 mexes, how does one pay for T2 armies?

I ment just mexes, I'd like the ability to ban units though. I am under the impression that is in the works. I always liked a good ground war.

The ground war's where it's at brah! If Air and Nukes are balanced then it should be the focus of the game if there is ground to play on.

You have T1 armies, with supporting assets from T2.

I disagree on the T2 mexes but agree on the unit ban. Unit bans are fantastic, that way you can play a game the way you want without affecting others who want to play a different way.

I think unit bans / limitations would work better. TA had a sliding scale for units bans so you could limit them from 0-99 or have no restrictions. Percentages might work better in PA though. That way you aren't imposing your T1 with small numbers of T2 on people who like having massive armies of both tiers (like me! )

Fundamentally, if T1 is supposed to coexist with T2, then a coincidence buff to eco with T2 unit costs negate any T1 advantage.

Here is another angle, we have one faction right, why? The lore is that technologies have been assimilated, and what is being used is optimal, so all factions have the same roster; However why does T1 get used, wouldn't T2 if it is straight up superior be used in T1's place, we could just be rid of all T1.

Only if T1 units and T2 units fill the exact same roles which is hopefully something that will change. It's very much possible to have T1 and T2 co-exist, be different enough in their roles and still have a T2 eco.

You can even get away with units that are direct upgrades though in that case I personally like to see the T2 version trade maneuverability and speed for strength and firepower.

It would also help if the damage scale was a bit lower, so that way you didn't have T2 killing T1 before T1 can even get into range, so when you do get into a numbers game of quantity vs quality, quality isn't always the victor.

Right now we've got stuff like

T1 Ant -> T2 Leveler where the Leveler is just a better Ant.

What I'd rather see is something like

TA T1 Arty bot

Thud - Arty bot that uses a lower trajectory shot, it's high enough to shoot over most units but can't handle cover from terrain (hills etc) as well (though it works better than a tank shot) However it's also low enough that it can hit units because the trajectory isn't crazy high.

TA T2 arty bot

Dominator - Another arty bot, but this one uses high trajectory missiles, horrible against moving units but good against defenses and hitting units that are in cover (either behind other units or behind obstacles)

So we've got 2 arty bots but they have different rolls, the thud works great mixed in with an army because it can actually hit units that are mobile, the Dominator, not so much. On the other hand, the Dominator excels against base defenses and has no problems with firing over almost any type of obstacles due to hit's very high trajectory missile

If I was going to be an ***, I'd say that people are only likely to associate with those that agree with them, and aren't likely to have prolonged discourse with those that disagree (it's a simple reaction, we dislike it when people don't agree with us).

That said, I'm really trying to be less of an *** these days. Honestly, it's somewhat ingrained in me due to several other Internet communities. I recognise that, and am trying to fix it However, confirmation bias is definitely a large part of "oh but X and Y agree with me".

A nerf to metal output I could possibly agree with. General availability I would not, given that that's completely dependent on the system played on and is thus impossible to balance (indeed, the systems themselves balance the gameplay by allowing all players an abundance or deficit of available Metal).

However, why nerf Metal as supposed to balancing costs? If we make things cost more Metal, surely that resolves the problem? What is the difference, assuming a competent nerf to Metal generation or a competent nerf to Metal costs.

Because we still run into a T2 race. The boom in T2 eco means you can spam out basic units much faster than your opponent.

So even if you increase the costs of advanced units, the game still turns into first one to T2 wins.

That's what we're trying to avoid – the tech race because that is binary and boring.

We want explosions, not sim city.

I dislike that you keep on using "boring" as a balance argument. I also dislike that you repeatedly use the phrase "tech race" when most RTSs have it in some form and it doesn't devolve the play at all.

The important things to balance, apart from the costs, would be.

1. Can a player win in T1?

2. Can a player in T1 beat a player rushing to T2?

3. Why should a player rushing to T2 not be rewarded with an advantage? Surely, that's the benefit of going T2?

4. Can a player in T1 beat a player in T2 who makes mistakes?

This are all perfectly possible without the changes you are proposing. You're only seeing one solution because you're only seeing one problem.

First off I'm 'for' Tiers.
1. Yeah... if the opponent is also T1 and not spamming defences. So no.

2. Not currently.

3. They should. That advantage should be units which fill wider rolls (like snipers, different kinds of artillery, amphibious units etc.) Not such a huge economic boom, and not straight-up upgrades of T1 units. Of course we can have a T2 Direct-Fire bot (Slammer) but its damage should be mitigated/balanced somewhat by 'Deploying' like in Total Annihilation, providing a short delay before it can fire and this giving low-damage units (like Doxen) which can start firing quicker a chance.

4. Not if that T2 player just builds T2 units. Not doing so would be a pretty major mistake.

What is the point in taking the economic hit of going to T2 if the only rewards are sidegrades? What is the incentive considering a T1 player can still beat him?

As for the "not currently", etc, I'm wholly behind any gameplay or balance changes (unrelated to Metal specifically) that make this possible

More tactical options.
I do think there should be an economic bonus to going to T2 as well - just not as big as it is now. Metal needs to be worth fighting over.