Risk vs Reward

Even better; Basic and Specialized.

I don't think that advanced should be only "specialized" they should also be better. They should just be balanced so that they are not the ONLY way to go. So far, I approve of meta's changes.

If they are better, then by logic, they are better.

So why is it a choice to go for a worse unit?

All good RTS games were good even when they the weren't balanced.

Numbers and min/maxing is useless and extremely flaky. Just look at starcraft1 and how it survived with out number madness for years. Interesting options make for good games not forced meta via numbers.

Because you could get more of them. The idea isn't to have a unit that is better and more efficient, the "amazingness per metal" should just be equivalent between T1 and T2. If T2 wasn't better, than there would be no sense of progression, why would I build specialized units if I can just build a whole bunch of generic ones, and not have to build an extra factory?

It doesn't matter because if a unit type is simply better then another, then you always go for the better unit.

If the other version is better for it's cost and is easy to have more of them, then by definition the first one is NOT better.

So your logic is flawed.

The concept is fascinating. But perhaps yours is a metaphor of what you're trying to experiment with the relationship between T1 and T2, taken to its extreme consequences?

That's not what I'm referring to. Currently T2 is better because one-on one a T2 units will beat T1, this by itself should not be a problem because you should be able to get more T1 than T2. Currently you cannot get enough T1 to beat T2. I do think that T2 units should be nerfed, but I also think that they shouldn't just be equivalent to T1 units.

Meta should take his extreme consequence idea to the other extreme sometime: balance with out numbers towards whatever feels more fun.

The problem with your logic is that in every game ever when you have two units balanced by numbers of them and no popcap then if the advanced one looses you just didn't have enough critical mass.

I'm not sure what you're saying...

Let me just make myself more clear (should have done this earlier, sorry).

In my most humble opinion,

T2 units should be more powerful 1-on-1 than T1 units. They should also be more specialized. They should not be as powerful as they are now, I freely admit that T2 units are currently a bit OP.

That said, T2 units should be much more expensive than they are now, making the barrier of entry into T2 harder to break. This would allow unit rushes to beat advanced rushes.

In my opinion, bringing T2 down to the level of T1 removes them from the playing field, because I'd then have to go build an extra factory for units that aren't any better, when instead I can just swarm the basic units I have now...

Get enough t2 and you can take on infinity t1 to the point where to even remotely balance them they have to be so similar they might as well be the same damn unit.

That's by far the smallest problem, the problem is that while it is very easy to build T1 units (It is, and it's totally fun) it's that the T2 economy is several times greater then a T1 economy, meaning that rushing T2 gives you a unit, economic, intelligence (Like radar, not brain cells), defensive and super weapon advantage that T1 cannot even begin to fight against with simple numbers.

Anti-nukes being in T2 makes T1 utterly incapable of dealing with the current nuke mechanics (That I dislike)
T2 economy buildings are far more efficient then their originals for very little cost in time and resources to maintain and build, and provide enough resources to feed you for the rest of the game with no need to expand and fight your opponent
T2 defences are more specialised against T2 units, but this does lead to making sure that the first into T2 can easily defend against it too.
T2 units include many AOE units that specialise in defeating large groups of enemy's, and ranged units to fight defences, along with transports to move slower T2 units, defeating all of T1's advantages.
T2 is where super weapons like nukes and asteroids are at, making their use against the teched up enemy force in the hands of the player with the unit and eco advantage.

You can't pin this on a single issue, this is kind of a wider thing that gives the second tier every conceivable advantage, with the only draw back being the time to get there.

So a good player will ensure that they use what T1 they build is a delaying force until a T2 force can be built (Quickly after the factory is done with).

First, I thank you for engaging in an actual discussion about our concerns

As I am in favor of a more "flat" game without that large increase in income from T2 I believe that we simply have different tastes.
You prefer the jump to T2 to be "high risk -> high reward?" while I prefer to have the actual tactics on the battlefield themselves be the only source of "high risk -> high reward?" gameplay without being distracted by such major economic decisions too much.

Originally, I wrote some ramble while half asleep but since that didn't work out too well I will simply direct you to a post where I once summed up why I don't like that increase in income.
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/why-dont-we-start-directly-in-t2.58523/page-3#post-909521

I would be pleased if you took a look at the economy section

To sum it up: Your approach will certainly work but I believe there to be some issues and propose to rebalance Advanced a bit. Well..since you know more about balancing than me you will probably come up with a solution to all of these problems

Also, here is the ramble if you are into that sort of thing

Edit:
Hint: This is a useful post. DONT'T LOOK AT ME LIKE THAT

Ok..I`m off to sleep now.

I honestly think that Starcraft did it right.

T1 was your spam, and the higher tiers were just giving you more options.
Some of them were counters to T1 spam, some of them siege units, transports, battleships (how come Starcraft could have flying batteships and PA can't, although PA would be much more suited for it?), units to harass etc.

But then again for every unit there was also a counter. And that created dynamic.
And in PA I feel that I just build whatever, anything will do. Honestly, if I build 3 advanced vehicle factories, one will produce levelers, one vanguards and the other one shellers. There isn't really any real questioning behind my decisions.

"Does he have gunships?" "Yes."
"I need pelegrins."

End of discussion.

"Does he have nukes?" "Yes."
"I need an anti-nuke."

It's dull, there is no decisionmaking, no intuition, because these are only "yes" or "no" questions.

Ok, so been thinking a bit. Everything is assumed to be in the context of PA, of course.

First, what is/why do we have the concept of a tier?

A tier is a group of units/buildings that have a substantially different metal efficiency than another group, and moving to a higher tier has a substantial entry barrier that is supposed to balance that increased efficiency.

Now, imagine a unit. Its a very similar case.

A unit is a object with an upfront cost that performs a task with a certain degree of effectiveness. The cost of a unit serves to balance its relative effectiveness, which is its efficiency.

How are the two different?

The utility/efficiency of a unit towards the player is some function of its cost and effectiveness, both in terms of metal.

Imagine a unit that costs 100 metal, and kills 100 metal worth of other stuff. It has an efficiency of 1. You would think that a unit with a cost of 1 million that kills 1 million worth of other stuff is just as efficient, but that's not true. Given the same absolute efficiency values, cheaper = better. So really, we get something that looks like this.

utility = efficiency = effectiveness / (cost* 1.1)

'1.1' is there because initial investments are actually worse than their naive value. It could be anything, honestly. It might not even be linear- it could be a exponential, or even itself a function of the average cost of units or how quickly more metal leads to more metal. The point is, its easy to balance units. Or easier.

When we try to apply the same concept to a tier, nothing works anymore.

A tier is not an increase in effectiveness balanced by an increase in cost. It is an increase in efficiency balanced by cost. The utility of a tier does not equal its efficiency, instead, its a function of the increase in effectiveness balanced by the cost. Another issue is that tiers don't 'die' like units, so its really hard to say how how much mass using a higher tier saves you.

An expensive upgrade to a tier, even if that tier is MUCH more efficient, doesn't help if you start paying for it right before the game ends. It never pays for itself. If you get it earlier, it matters far more- thats why we rush things. Now, what determines how early you get something? Cost. So cost is affecting our utility in two ways, so maybe it will be exponential.

Anyway, this is getting long, so here is my best guess for a utility function of a tier.

I have none. Sorry. Ill try to think about it more, but honestly, I'm not sure. Paying an upfront cost for an increase in efficiency might just not be a good thing.

As it currently stands, that is true. I did edit my post to make myself more clear, I'll just paste it again here for easy reference.

I agree, there are a whole bunch of balance issues with T2 right now. I was just trying to point out that I think turning T2 units into T1 units is not the way to go. We still have to deal with nukes, anti-nukes, defenses, things like that.

If I might speak directly to the point here:

Make the cost of going to your next tier, a cost in time, and thus a risk that can be capitalised on over the course of like....5-10 mins?

But scale the numbers back of teching considerably to smaller numbers, none of that 100,000 stuff.

The problem I feel, is that it's not the cost to tech that's really a problem, but the actual ability to use it against a opponent on a planet of such a scale.

Make teching a heavy time investment, and the risk is one all that lost time AND resources into it's development.

And I'll happily see what you guys have instore for us!

Well that's the thing, T1 units shouldn't be a measure for the overall strength of a unit, but more the unit's use.

Sure you can have beefy destructive T2 units, but that's shouldn't mean that a T1 unit has the same role as it.

As a rule of thumb, the new unit, the T2 unit should be similar to a T1 unit, but more focused on one particular role of the T1 units overall job.

Such as making a basic tank, and a tank that is good at taking damage, but as a result loses speed or fire-power.

Yes, I agree with this. I guess my points are mostly this:

1. T2 should be better than T1, one-on-one
2. T2 should be harder to get than T1, so that a cost-equivalent force of T1 units can beat a force of T2 units

The barrier of entry to T2 doesn't need to be economy, but economy is very relevant to the issue.