Discussion on T1/T2 balance in todays live stream

I think he is arguing that he finds no need to build ADDITIONAL T1 factories once T2 is up. But, I dunno, it doesn't mean T1 is redundant, you just probably have enough T1 factories already to keep spamming T1 units.

And wouldn't you still plop some T1 facs down as proxies before moving to T2?

Unless your going different t2 facts and spreading their location out from the other t2 facts, you rarely build 2 I feel. Which is good/bad/mostlybad but tweakable.

You would possibly upscale t1 production if you wanted to go "blunt", which is entirely viable with how strong t1 units are. You could just turn off t2 fact and build another set or two of t1 facts and just try to flood your opponent with more t1 than he can keep up with. Maybe scout and build a sheller if necesary for turrets.

I could dig cheaper t2 units (but much more expensive than they were), and equally lowered t2 factory fabrication-rate for it's units. However, id leave t2 mex cost and t2 fabber unit cost alone, make those expensive to keep them a weakness to t2 and a liability to defend (having a really expensive fabber sniped is a problem). Also encourages t2 fabbers assisted by t1 ones, you don't need to produce a ton of t2 fabbers, their use should be their blueprints and they should be used just for that while other fabbers help the one t2 fabber in assistance.

This is difficult to design, difficult to balance, and difficult to code as it involves creating many unique interactions in the game. It is the right thing to do for PA.

Let me know if it happens.

Working on it. Check the link at the bottom of my signature if you're interested in getting involved.

Man, I don't want to go fixing someone else's game. And not get paid for it. It feels gross.

I'll take a look, but most of the stuff I'm interested in depends on the game engine being able to support it. Tweaking numbers can only go so far.

Did they majorly nerf turret aoe, dmg, rof, and time to build yet? One double laser shouldn't be able to nullify an entire t1 timing. Most of the time spent discussing and 'balancing' t1/t2 is pretty pointless without turret fixes. There should always be an immediate tradeoff between economic expansion and defensive/offensive power.

The way to encourage t1 is also to make it so you die to t1 if you don't build units. So you actually have to scout to see what your opponent is doing. Not just spam turrets and turret creep everywhere. I really hate that you can just single laser every mex expansion and shut down timings so easily.

Sure you can punish people for trying to rush for t2 by making it cost more, but that doesn't actually make things funner since you spend half the game waiting for tech to kill his turret turtle just to end an already decided game.

Anyway, it sounds like t1 tanks are blatantly imba. I hope this is for experimentation to test the limits, and not actually as an RC. They only needed slightly more mobility, not turbocharged racing engines + dmg and hp.

t1 vehicles are covering up issues with t2 pacing and making things appear to be in a better place than they really are. Which is concerning i think.

I agree. The problem with the T1/T2 balance is not timing, it is entirely due to combat balance. Its the combat balance that is affecting timing.

No skill Advanced rushers will win everything again by not fighting, no harrass, not getting and maintaining mapcontrol, not making factory's, ot making eco, not making workers, not making anything except their single T2 factory, wich they can spam their super efficient direct upgrade with so that they can make T2 economy and even when they lose everything but the core of their base, they still got more eco and stronger army's then the player who did every other thing except the nobrainers T2 rush.

*personal attack removed by mods - post like passionate, polite humans, please*

You describe the game we have now.

Notice how I'm talking about Combat Balance.

A game where staying at T1 and racing to T2 are both equally viable options has more strategy than a game where you are forced to stay at T1 until some condition is met, or the game where T2 is a blatant upgrade over T1.

Check your premises please.

Check your premise is a pretty big challenge which is why I respond to this.

What isn't highly strategic about high risk high cost high reward units? I mean, we are talking if they are actually numbers balanced, what is "boring" about scouting and deciding if t1 pressure can win the war or if t2 rush can be defended just for long enough to open up some superweapons? RTS games have done this for years.

Theoretically, if there was a t3, it could be ridiculous cost gamewinning reward, but most people hate t3. But you know what blows your mind? t3 is just halleys, nukes, and laser satellites. Really. High cost, high reward. What is amazing, is that in a macro game like this, those aren't inhereitly winning but they are strong and they scale with size; the larger the game is, the more superweapons can be used at once, and the more a player can take a hit from a superweapon.

In pte, t3 as I call it, is entirely optional, they are bighit snipes, and t2 is all the easily useable snipes that don't get instant results and you still have to fight to accomplish, and t1 is general bulky power, and each is entirely an option, what is boring about that?

#directupgradesawesome

I don't like that T2 is reserved for the late game in the PTE. I like that T1 is relevant now that turrets have been nerfed.

T2 should be a strategic decision. It should have a purpose besides *let's go T2 and win.* In the tank patches, you went t2 vehicles to get levellers to punch through your enemy's armies and pelter nests. Build it too early, and tanks eat your base alive. Too late, your enemy starts overwhelming your forces with leveller - ant armies. It's not a black and white win - he just loses less metal than you because he has Levellers. They gave you more combat effectiveness for each metal spent on them.

Currently, all T2 units are more effective than their counterparts (if they have any), and it's plainly obvious.

Right now, defending a T2 rush is too easy in the stable build. It's impossible in the PTE. I like the PTE better because the games are less sitting around hoping gunships don't eat your base before you build T2 air and more ATTACK ATTACK EXPAND EXPAND AGGHHH SO MANY THINGS.

I suggest you reread my post to see what I am addressing, and decide for yourself whether or not I am agreeing with both you, and the poster I responded to.

And no, that really did not blow my mind. I'm pretty sure I was among the first people to suggest that an asteroid base was virtually indistinguishable from an experimental.

For a useful definition of direct upgrades, I suggest you look at more RTS games. If T2 is balanced so t1 units with the same role are not completely useless, by definition, t2 is not a direct upgrade.

Most of all, I'd be hoping for an evolution of a genre, not an example.

Well, Zero-K nor Battlefield2150 or whatever is an "evolution". Technically, this is a spiritual successor of a direct classic rts game from the 90s. If it's balance is more traditional based, it would make sense in that reguard. Either way, if it was, that would be how vanilla PA turns out, terrific, as long as actually balanced as well. Faction/Tier/Unit mods aren't game fixes, they are game directions torwards people attached to game directions.

Being traditional, you think that would mean 2 similar factions with different focus too, but I bet they saw "balance hype and demands" being an issue, which makes sense, that worked for TA factions but in PA imagine balancing 2 factions with different focuses and hearing everyone complain "you'd only choose this one if you wanted a vague chance of even winning". Players can do that in mods, they avoided that rightfully like they did energy-metal-converters.

Battlefield 2150?


Trophy you don't understand what I mean when I say evolution. Evolution or example. It being a spiritual successor does not force it to be an example.