PA will never be balanced

Here you go using games that are not even similiar to PA. I could see maybe a sc2 comparison or supcom comparison. RTS is a strategy game totally different genre then EVE. As far as opening builds. Why cant you think of a better opening build and then copy others.

The eve comparison is fine considering what he was referencing.

Ship specialisations are similar to army builds.

There are some related concepts, based on the way I've seen the word used in e-sports communities:

You can be ahead of the metagame, we can say this in retrospect about players that used strategies that became popular later on. They had a certain foresight about the direction the game would go into, so to say.

You can be behind on the metagame, which typically means you're still stuck with using outdated and (possibly) inferior strategies.

You can adapt to the metagame, which means that you can reorient your play so that it still works versus the newer styles that are emerging.

Certain players can have a style that agrees to, or fits, the meta. There are many examples of players in Starcraft that would float in and out of prominence all based on whether their approach to the game was suited to the current meta. For instance, players can excell at certain skills and would have most success with strategies that emphasized these strengths, but they might have had to wait for those strategies to become viable again.

Meta is also dated to a time and place. Sometimes different regions are said to have a different meta, but players of different skill levels can also have a different one. You could even say that every two players would have their own unique meta.

The meta can be "figured out", which is when only a small set of strategies are considered viable and the only way to win, typically with a period of stagnation. This can be a death knell for the game, unless someone comes along and "revolutionizes the metagame" (certain Starcraft commentators are fond of saying this).

Actually, some people become very upset when you use the word metagame as they think it's a corruption of the word metagaming, which means something different. Metagaming is like: "my opponent typically does X, so I'll play an anti-X strategy", i.e. using out of game knowledge about your opponent's style to beat them.

It's a useful word though, why not use it?

How is that factory-first opening build going if you're such a strategic genius, @ikickasss?

Such statements to me look like the person saying them is trying to force his idea of a "good game" onto the game in front of him. That's the wrong approach, it needs to be the other way around. The player needs to adapt to the game.

Also factory first is only about getting rid of ~60s of always doing the same thing at the start, I don't think it has much to do with different viable strategies.

Both extremes are terrible.

The game shouldn't be made in such a way it's "convenient" to some players. At the same time, the players shouldn't have to sit on their head or slog though 10 hours to actually have fun. It's a god damn game after all, not a job.

Also with regard to this "best meta" discussion and the state of the current meta. It's pointless to go too deep into "well look at the pros they've figured it out." The game isn't about 10 people. Every game has "pro players." I'm sure even something silly like flappy bird has it's own "pros" too, but "viable strategies" =/= fun gameplay.

The game doesn't lack a meta, it lacks fun in it's meta. Even a game of chess is fun to play by just picking it up, regardless of difference in skill between players, so PA doesn't get a free pass in my books; especially in this day an age where the choice of games you could be playing isn't exactly small.

what. ive never started a build like that. where do you get your info from. *mod edited*

Just a side note:

I just clicked on this thread and this is one of the first things I saw.

Such statements + your username = I can't help but see you as a toxic member of this community.

Please don't even start acting like that or we will end up having such a crappy community as f2p MOBAs/ARTs/Hero Brawlers/etc. .

Ok. My misunderstanding on your comments re current Meta are well founded.

Because I understand Meta to be Meta strategies, I don't think of there as being one meta.

I don't really think that Vanguard drops/which t2 factory you tech into are part of the meta.

To me, metastrategy in PA is a balance between expansion and consolidation,

achieved by spending in various areas

• military
• production/buildpower
• economy/income

Military Expansion - More units
Military Consolidation - More static units and more unit roles in an army

Consolidating production/buildpower - Having a main production base/Assisting instead of building another factory
Expanding production/buildpower - Spreading it out across several proxies/Building more factories (redundancy)

Economic Expansion - Spreading it out.
Economic Consolidation - Tech 2 Incomes.

In other words, do you go high, or do you go wide?

I don't understand how the current meta is more varied than previous metas, or even that different to what it was a month ago.

The meta still is consolidate to T2. It's just consolidate to T2 in 7 minutes, not 5, because the same harassment tactics that have always been present are still useful?

I really don't comprehend the derision implied in your posts. A month ago, everyone recognised that consolidation to T2 was what was important this patch, and shifted priority to mastering that. Now that's happened, and the consolidation requirement has relaxed a little.

But nowhere on these forums have I seen any players saying that initially forgoing military or industrial consolidation to T2, in favour of military or industrial expansion at T1*, is a strong strategy which will guarantee them a win. If anyone says "T1 expansion (military/production wise) is still part of the Meta", they normally mean after consolidation to T2.


I do feel like we have swung from one extreme (t1 expansion dominates) to the other (t2 expansion dominates)

Note that I am using the term expansion in the sense of becoming larger/more extensive, not literally "across the map", and consolidation as "making something stronger"

*economic expansion vs economic consolidation is another kettle of fish entirely - you have to expand your economy at t1 because you start with nothing. But no one seems to expand t1 energy economy instead of expanding t2 energy economy, so I think the point stands.

Careful what you wish for

Edit:
You say "I can beat players with any other means in the game".

Just Dox is a means. And you can beat players with any means in the game. Ergo, you can beat players with just dox.

Good luck, have fun!

Still waiting for you to tell me where I said I can beat any player just with dox.

I help many new players in this game. Before you start making assumptions read the whole thread instead of coming with conclusions. Maybe your the toxic one making judgments instead of reading the whole thread. Plus Bullet was making a all out lie accusation of my build. Well I'm done with the nonsense in this thread. For all the new guys that read this if you need help just join my game and I can teach you some basic tricks in this game.

That's not how it works, helping newer players doesn't give you "karma to spend" on being obnoxious to other people.

Can't you?

I don't have a problem with you, @ikickasss, I have a problem with your arguments.

People are forgetting the cardinal rule of this forum. Don't get worked up because someone disagrees with you. No attacking people. If you can't disagree like grownups, don't post, please.

If you look at just a few of the world championship games, for Magic the Gathering, you will see the players at the highest level still have several different deck building strategies that are viable. High level PA, at this time, plays out nearly the same every time. This typical win strategy result is a direct consequence of the lack of strategic and tactical options that are available to us at this time.

I make a very big difference between building the deck and actually playing the game. Building the deck is the pre-game or metagame. I want the actual strategy part to be after you have started the game and not before the game when you make the deck, pick the heroes in Legue of Legends or chose the race.
I also want more strategies to be viable in PA to which I think buffing Ants/basic tanks and nerfing turrets probably will be a part of.
Ensuring that many viable strategies exists on every possible planet and in every planet system is the biggest challenge for the balance in Planetary Annihilation. So why don't you give advice on how to achieve that instead of drawing parallels to the pre-game of deckbuilding in Magic the Gathering?

I think the idea that Nullimus is trying to get across is the idea that pregame in current PA does not matter.

What I mean is, you go into PA with a pregame plan. And nothing your opponent can actually do will cause you to react to it and change the plan.

In PA, you commit to a techbuild from the very beginning. If your opponent commits to a T1 attack, they lose. Whereas in the simplest case, their t1 attack should disrupt your techbuild significantly and allow them to leapfrog.

I believe that is the point Nullimus is trying to get across, but I admit I may be wrong.

While it is really difficult to get a top player off their game plan you are pretty close. My example is actually more to the point of the fact that Magic has many different strategies that can net you a win.

These different strategies are inherent to each color. Green is the big tank approach. Blue is about limiting the options of your opponent by stopping his plays. White is defensive and focuses on smaller units, and gradual expansion. Red is about just doing as much direct damage as possible. Black usually requires some sacrifice on the part of the player to get more power quickly. All five of the strategic approaches can be trumped by any of the other 4. It has no strict RPS mechanic.

To put the five colors of magic into PA terms.
At T1:
White = T1 units with cautious expansion
White is probably the most balanced approach. It has to incorporate defenses and expansion in a slow and steady growth.
Blue = Air harrass
Air is the weakest approach by far. with AA towers and AA ground units, combined with how fragile the aircraft are, blue cannot win.
Black = Really not present
Red = Artillery/turret creep
Currently Red is the most powerful at T1. It can seize control of large portions of map control and does not need to maintain a high economy to maintain it.
Green = All out ground assault
Green is almost as powerful as red but not quite. Green has a much larger appetite for economy and can be starved without too much creative thought.

At T1 nearly all of the strategies are viable for a win.

At T2:
White = Not an option
Blue = Air Attack
Blue can win at T2 but it is very expensive. And there is no victory for Blue if the enemy is off world.
Black = Not present
Red = Nukes, Satellite, Halleys, Artillery
All of the game enders are in Red at T2. The only counter at present is to get there first.
Green = T2 Ground assault
Green is the second most viable T2 approach. It even has some effectiveness if your opponent is off world via the use of teleporters. But we need to remember that teleporters cannot establish a presence without the support of interplanetary nukes or orbital fighter and anchor spam.

In an RTS some aspect of these 5 approaches to a game are traditionally encapsulated in the different races or factions. PA does not have different races that favor a certain players play style, and the unit variety does not provide equal support for all of the different play styles. We need any of the different approaches to the game to have equal viability. (This is what I mean when I say balance.) Only at that point will every player have the ability to win with their preferred play style.

I am not talking about deck building. Take a look at this post. https://forums.uberent.com/threads/pa-will-never-be-balanced.58794/page-5#post-916451