Community UberBalance Games!

Discussion in 'Planetary Annihilation General Discussion' started by mered4, October 23, 2014.

  1. pivo187

    pivo187 Active Member

    Messages:
    555
    Likes Received:
    167
    Cola:Have you played sup com fa? In sup com you can turn the tides of the war without having huge numbers. I played so many games where the opponent had more economy/army but somehow I used a tactic or strategy that won the game. I guess it's just not possible in pa bc your playing on several planets, usually whoever owns more planets wins.
  2. cola_colin

    cola_colin Moderator Alumni

    Messages:
    12,074
    Likes Received:
    16,221
    That's not a definition of tactics or strategy.
    Our views are probably pretty different though, I play mainly 1vs1. I've played it A LOT 1vs1 in SupCom:FA as well and I can tell you: If you have a considerably smaller army you will usually lose there as well. Unless you plan on sniping your opponent.
    I can see that PA is more limited in unit selection and has certainly more balance issues than FA right now, but I can see a lot of tactics and strategy in PA as well as FA.
  3. pivo187

    pivo187 Active Member

    Messages:
    555
    Likes Received:
    167
    Can someone host a mod?
  4. LmalukoBR

    LmalukoBR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    327
    Likes Received:
    278
    I don't see that many tactics being used in PA mostly is just deathball against deathball, player with smaller death ball loses. What determines the size of the death balls is the strategic aspect of the game. I even posted out some time ago how to make the game more tactical: https://forums.uberent.com/threads/discussion-on-how-to-make-pa-more-tactical.65672/
  5. LmalukoBR

    LmalukoBR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    327
    Likes Received:
    278
  6. thetrophysystem

    thetrophysystem Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,050
    Likes Received:
    2,874
    suggested it, radar range reduction, and some orbital changes and such, last discussion with him. He made more necesary changes first, radar being as how it was full planet basically, and power efficiency in generators.
  7. LmalukoBR

    LmalukoBR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    327
    Likes Received:
    278
    The main suggestion is double ROF, halving the damage to keep the same DPS. And give the commander a big boost in health. Those changes don't seem to get much in the way of each other, or radars or power gens... And seem very simple to implement since the would change only 3 values.
  8. mered4

    mered4 Post Master General

    Messages:
    4,083
    Likes Received:
    3,149
    I'm still mulling balance changes. The last few games have given me a lot to think about. I can't just throw changes in there all willy-nilly. So many units are just....weird. :)
    Murcanic likes this.
  9. thetrophysystem

    thetrophysystem Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,050
    Likes Received:
    2,874
    Well, in his defence, the commander isn't a wierd unit. Tbh, faster rof even if 1.5 rof at .75 dam, would be hardly noticable while doing better vs bots. Also, make the shot faster so bots can't outmicro it relibly (but still can).

    Oh, speaking of suggesting commander changes, besides faster rof and bullet-speed without damage increase, and possibly a commander health increase (14k max lol), why not a commander cost decrease? It would be nice to repair a commander a little faster. I suggest (edit:stupid) 14k metal cost.

    The t2 bomber can be wierd, but it really does something familiar in a adjusted way, not much different than the dox change. I could see any other changes too "different" from vanilla, but not commander weapon change really. Really, the t2 bomber, dox, and even a vanguard or skitter change, wouldn't be so bad either but those specifically change vanilla.
  10. mered4

    mered4 Post Master General

    Messages:
    4,083
    Likes Received:
    3,149
    I'm thinking of the various OP units I've witnessed in the past few test games. The sheller, for example, has both great range and damage. The T2 Bomber eats armies for lunch, but dies quickly in the presence of AA, and doesn't have a prayer against T2 naval. T2 Naval completely negates the use of T1 in small spaces. Larger battles, the t1 navies do quite well, but in a battle for a lake, T2 navy just eats everything.

    Dox aren't being used much (by others, at least), but that's probably artificial, due to their nerf. The grenadiers feel balanced, but I need more 1v1s to prove it.
  11. thetrophysystem

    thetrophysystem Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,050
    Likes Received:
    2,874
    The dox nerf is artificial, you can still harass and sniper fabbers with them, and they are still the only rapidfire unit in the game which makes them niche counter against grenadiers.

    Grenadiers are good bots, but aren't tanks damagewise and don't stand up to dox or repair-effective.

    T2 naval is supposed to be strong, perhaps nerf it a little more in dps or higher cost, but it does what is meant when you t2 naval an edge of a lake to invade across a lake. Land can also take out naval from what I last remember, even t2 naval.

    Bombers can always have slight changes applied. Less health (it drops its bombs because it drops them before dying, but it still dies which affects it's cost for use). Maybe equal or greater AOE range with less AOE damage and possibly more strike-target damage. Maybe just nerf all of that and give it regular bomber damage, but make it radar-invisible? Idk, honestly it works well and is even unique in how you drop bombs across the front of an army with it instead of just swarm-flyover.

    The kestrel is worth taking a look at, it really is the air anti-dox generally, and can do some soaking against AA to get cheap snipe bombers in. Really, that is a good role, just if used with all brain cells it could be really good, like being repaired for instance or being used just as a damage sponge for a fragile bomber run. Could always use price adjustment if that was ever a thing.

Share This Page