An in-setting/ in-lore view on common balance issues.

Discussion in 'Balance Discussions' started by radongog, January 6, 2015.

  1. radongog

    radongog Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    295
    I´d like to present a not so usual opinion on PA balance in general---but first of all I have to say that I like PA a lot, my rating for it is in the 85-90 Area in general. Some folks in other forums think I´d be a blind fanboy to support such a rating. I don´t think that´s right, PA got many points that can be enhanced, but shitstorm against PA grown to large to do not defend PA at any possible situation. So I just wanted to prove this in writing down a wall of text of things that can be enhanced in PAs balance, but KEEPING what I like of it´s general design!

    I backed PA not because I wanted to have the next StarCraft or so. I wanted to have a total new, revolutionary RTS. An RTS that focus a lot on athmo, setting and strategy (and not on Tactics & APM) instead of common, traditional mechanics. It already got many things right. It´s the first stratGame I know that really got the essential part of Teamplay, ShareArmy is Teamplay realized in one of the best way possible. So congrats to that one. It uses WYSIWYG nice, but there is a lot of potential left. In this post, I want to explain what has to be kept and what should be changed in general to focus MORE on Athmo, Setting and Strategy!

    1st-Generally, some elements has to stay the same at Tier I
    • Most important, the standard Tier I Units have to stay what some users call "popcorn units"! Why? Imagine the in-lore design process of Tier I-units. Image those robots inventing these units. They shall be a quick start. Have as much DPS per Metal as possible within the design frame. And when you need something more durable, switch to Tier II. The current units would need near to 100% more metal to have double the life---so why would the designers go that way?! They could go for double the army count instead of that! So hell, KEEP that!
    • There is one Tier I-unit that completely looks like it´s breaking this design philosophy; it´s one of the two melees in the game. The Inferno; slow, armored, expensive, high damage. Why did I bold the last one? Course that´s the reason why it´s not breaking the philosophy.
    • The boom completely fits within the design frame. However, it´s too expensive! (same costs as a Dox)
    • There is simply no reason why there is no LowDamageHighFireRateAntiGroundDefense Structure at all. There are many units with minimized HP and costs but maximized damage, due to 1st! Every in-lore-designer would now bring up a defense structure with "No HP, no damage, high fire rate." And don´t try to tell me that the "Single-Laser-Defense-Tower" is such a structure. It does 9x Overkill on Booms while fireing 1 shot per second!
    • Every unit has to have a specific role. Generalists are units that fit in Tier II, not in Tier I, course generalists need life, speed and damage at the same time. As previously stated, that´s not Tier I!
    • this doesn´t mean that I disagree with Dox as Anti-All-units. Dox are no good at defense, no good at attacking well defended bases (anymore), so they are all-right.
    2nd-Tier II:
    • Tier II got a total different design concept. They are optimized on superiority, not on maximum damage. That´s why they need MORE range. MORE Weapons. MORE Armour. MORE anti-all-units! (Currently, we only got the Stingray, as Dox is Tier I) We need an Anti-All-Superiority-Fighter, equipped with two Anti-Air-Launchers and a Laser Weapon!
    • The Kestrel is the perfect example how a generalist should work. You can use it for literally everything from local defense to point attacks to base attacks to planet defenses to harassment. Everything except defending somebody against hummingbirds or bumblebees, course being a generalist shouldn´t result in being OP!
    • Gil-Es should be able to shoot at air. They are perfect snipers that never miss their targets, of course they have to be able to shoot air!
    • Hornets shouldn´t act like powered by a Pentium I. What´s the point of a HighDamageTacticleBomber with Ultra-Range whose AI doesn´t seem to know it got ultra-range?! (They are OP when used by a Player who micros them)
    3rd-Energy consumption:
    • I know that this one has been discussed quite often and in detail. Important: Those Robots don´t shoot for defense, they shoot for awesome... erhhm... Annihilation! And that´s what they SHOULD do! So yes, I´m a supporter of "destroying shall be easier than defending" and "setting up an army should be easier then setting up an infrastructure/defense/ economy".
    • I suggest giving every Defense Structure some energy costs when shooting!
      • It punishes players that have less then 100% efficiency
      • It adds tactical depth. (Bombing Energy instead of defense becomes a valuable step)
      • Holkins is not the "one that stands out" (always had energy consumption)
      • makes sense within the setting!
    • Giving Tier I fabbers ways less efficiency then a tier I factory doesn´t make any sense!
      • Fabbers and Factories are based on the same technology as you can see (->WYSIWYG)
      • "Mobiling" something makes it less efficient then let it stay static, yes!
      • Tier II fabbers have nearly the same efficiency as Tier II fabs while being mobile units.
      • Air fabbers are less efficient than every other fabber, yes! (and that´s good!)
      • Strangely Tier I Air fabs got less efficiency, too!
      • But nothing can explain why Tier I ground fabbers, which are squishy, not cheap and not fast have more than 100% less efficiency than Tier I fabs!
    • A clever in-lore-designer wouldn´t do fabs with 675 Energy consumption when Energy Plants give 600 Energy!!!
    -> I suggest a total redesign of all energy values! In my eyes a Tier I fab (which got four Tier I building tools) should convert 20 Metal at an Energy Consumption of 1200. (Two energy plants) A Tier I fabber (one building tool) should convert only 5 Metal at an Energy Consumption of 400! (That´s +33% inefficiency) An air fabber should have 450 (+50% inefficiency), air fab the same as the other fabs! (course I see no reason why that one should be less efficient!) Those changes would lead to:
    -Players build more fabbers
    -Players consider supporting Tier I fabs with fabbers (only slight disadvantage)
    -Fabbers don´t become ultra-efficient, so step up to Tier II is still a valuable step!
    -Fabbers can set up new energy plants without ruining energy while trying to fix energy! :)
    mered4 likes this.
  2. radongog

    radongog Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    295
    4th-Economy & Reclaim
    • The robots aren´t only supposed to harvest resources, they shall be able to EXPLOIT resources!
      • It would fit in the setting to introduce a "reckless metal extractor" that gets out tons of metal in no time but kills the MEP after some time.
      • Simply give MEPs a regenerating health bar. They don´t get killed by the regular ones and cannot be shot. But they can be killed by those R-MEXes!
    • To reclaim something (= "controlled destruction") should always be more complicated then destroying it in a traditional way
      • That´s why I believe that it´s okay to let it cost energy to reclaim something
      • I believe that those energy consumption tweaking will already help with this
    • Reclaiming while being neg on metal reduces your efficiency at ANY task right now! That´s total bullshit! Reclaiming should work at max speed at any time as long as you have enough energy!
    • Reclaiming trees should be more valuable...
      • But why should reclaiming trees result in gaining METAL at all ?!
      • Please fix this damn word and change "METAL" to "MASS"
      • Don´t change the name of metal extractors! This can stay the same!

    5th-UI-Logic, AI-Logic and so on:
    • If you give a group of 20+ Fabbers the order to construct MEXes all over the planet, they start doing it sequential (1st->2nd->3rd->4th) instead of letting you choose between sequential and parallel workload! Damn it, they are robots. They know parallel workload! :D
    • It should be able for them to save build plans so you don´t have to set up a basic "energy plant-storage-fab"-sequence every time you want one!
    6th-Superweapons:
    • Nukes should become more central in Late- and VeryLateGame. I wanna have those awesome moments back in like you´re just waiting for your commander to walk in a gate while a nuke is heading at your base! (and everybody is )
      • Either Nukes have to become cheaper/more effective or AntiNukes have to become more expansive/ less effective!
      • Better Nukes will make Multi-Basing interesting again!
    • The Deathstar looks like it needs a lot of energy, so why don´t give him energy costs?
    • Halley-AI is dump as ****. One moon with a higher speed can be dodged if the targets starts to move, too!
    • Halley-AI is dump as ****. It will hit your own planets without any warning! (I don´t say I suffer under this. I´ve won pretty many games due to this fact...)
    7th-New Units:
    • If a unit, like an orbital bomber does make sense, then please do it.
      • It probably will be too strong. Guess what? You´ll find counters...
      • ...and raise the costs of those units. It will make them an option, but not THE only option!
    • I´m all in for mobile fabs like aircraft carriers and so on...
    • ...as well as multi-unit-transports, as long as they don´t hurt WYSIWYG
    • Experimental Units and Shields
      • I don´t believe in them. Shields doesn´t fit in the setting. They ruin the "every shot that hits something does damage"-effect, they ruin artillary and the whole "mechanical" look of the game! (BTW: Hitting your own structures with "regular" attacks doesn´t cause damage right now---please fix this, but also include clever options to adjust AutoAI!)
      • Experimentals got to restricted movements, they cannot leave a planet and so on...
      • ...if you really wanna do experimentals give Uber enough money to do fleshed out Tier III, IV, V and VI Units and Tier VI will be what you though about when you heard experimentals!
    Did I miss something? I really think so. But I hope the direction is clear. As long as WYSIWYG and in-setting logic are kept, I like nearly every step Uber could take. But please realize some of those...
    Oh, and remember: PA is awesome right now, course it did thinks that should have been done earlier (Good ShareArmy, Good WYSIWYG, Chronocam, PiP, A hell of style, ...)---but you can make it awesome forever!
    mered4 likes this.

Share This Page