Some thoughts on balance

It takes a single game to discover if your change is nuts - if you take it one step at a time.
I'm not really interested in playing with the devs much. We've done that plenty and it doesn't change much. I'm interested in them watching.

Well, since this thread seems to have gone to ****, i will add my thoughts to it too =O

I agree with nanolathe that a good chunk of the units, including buildings, in the game are very poorly defined and completely overlapping other units in terms of roles. However, i believe that the terms being used, such as 'raider' are pretty clear definitions of what a unit is supposed to be, but, statements such as 'designed to attack the weak points in the enemies lines' are poor definitions because that is not how unit roles should be defined. A raider should be defined as a low hp, fast, average damage unit. This allows those raiders to perform as a 'designed to attack the weak points in the enemies lines' without such useless statements. Now, i havnt played this game for a while now (at least not enough to know how the game plays), but from what i have seen from changelogs, unit roles have changed very little, such as the catapult or artillary situation.

Also, Uber was ALWAYS of the stance of absolutely HATING upgrades, yet a majority of units and buildings are so clearly upgraded versions of other units that they are complete contradictions on their stance. So why are we even considering the fact that a leveller being a better version of the ant/bolo/chipmunk/whateverItWillBeCalledNext is such an irritation and lack of thought. I am not against upgrades as they can very clearly create great games, supcom being one, however, such hypocrisy needs to be changed.

One of the worst parts of the game by far is still orbital. The whole orbital situation does not have anywhere near the initial hope we all had for this game, and IMO, it actually detracts from the competetiveness of the game. It feels as thouh what we have is a badly balanced, already good, normal RTS (with the only difference being spherical maps), with orbital tagged on as a forced expansion to the game. I am sure that orbital can work and make this a great game, but a lot of reworking is needed to get to that stage.

absolute disagreement. Balancing is not that easy.

Defining by stats is of no use unless everyone understands the base stats, which the vast majority of gamers will not.
example
This car moves at speed 20 – is that good or bad, no one knows how quick 20 is.
This car is a defined as ‘sports car’ – everyone can infer it is fast.
This unit has stats speed 5 vision 6 hp 200, dps 12 – what does that tell you if you don’t know the basic stats for the game? absolutely nothing.
This units is scout – ok, so its high vision and weak in a fight.
Role is the best way to define them. this is not 'epic maths battles'
The roles are defined – as when opponent does x, most people know to do Y, as that is what works. Defined roles and counter-roles.
Are they perfect, no, do they exist, yes.

That's one of the perfect examples of why communication for Uber is really really troublesome. One random word somewhere can turn into a rumor and then into a legend until 99% of the community believes the idea somebody got from a random word some red name posted is an absolute fact that will never change.

Colin, I just built a successful and viable balance mod in 24 ish hours of work.
I'm not new here. Balancing is that simple. You iterate again and again, testing on your own, gathering data from games with other players when necessary. It's not that hard when you have all these documented games on PAStats to look at. I did it. Why can't they?

This whole arguement is not valid, just because this group of people think a change in balance is crap, doesnt mean it wont be liked by the masses or other groups.

This whole "role" thing for units is only going to make the game like supcom, this unit is good at dealing with x and pretty much obsolete against anything else thats outside its role. Sorry guys that makes for some pretty bland game play.

No no no! I hate that idea!

When I say 'role', I don't mean, Situation X is happening, use Unit Y!

What I mean is simply this:

The role gives the unit boundaries. That way, it cannot be AA and anti armor and anti light and anti orbital all at the same time. It keeps units structured and unique, without removing the improvisation that everyone (well, mostly) loves to see in games.

On your first point:

Yeah, I'm actually inclined to agree with what you are saying here - why should they listen to us, the folks who are passionate enough about the game to come waste our precious social lives to discuss it with them personally?

I don't know. There are good arguments on both sides. But, they have to listen to someone. And since the casuals don't have a voice, I guess that's where we step in.

Edit: Nvm this post, accident

So you are deciding they have to listen to you... I think everyone should play your balance and then we can give you the same aggressive feed back you give. It's not like your balance is perfect. It's just what you want. So ridiculous. I am a casual and my voice carries just as much importance as yours does. I'd advise some humble self reflection.

A well thought out post, kuddos

I would commit a socially unacceptable act for that level of feedback for any project I'm currently working on... maybe even multiple socially unacceptable acts.

For all the rough, the diamonds would be worth it to me.

They don't have to listen to me! I don't care who they listen to! I want them to listen to someone! For the love of God, they haven't been listening to anyone.....

My balance is not perfect and I have never stated it is so. I am stating what I have done and what my abilities are currently. And it's not what I want. I'm still completely against the radar changes I recently made at the suggestion of TrophySystem, because I relied on it so much.

And yes, your voice does carry just as much importance! In some cases, more! I'm not trying to be an arrogant bitch here!

Guys, what are you doing? When i started reading this thread i was hoping on some interesting post about balance stuff. Almost all i got was complaining people, people complaining about people complaining and a whole page of nit picking on the definition of role. The only good post this last few pages were by klovian and gunshin (not derailing the thread and being interesting to read ). The drama is entertaining but i want a serious thread for a change. Everybody knows some of the members on this forum will never agree. So can you please stop having the same discussion every single time. Respect that you have different opinions and move on. No one of you is going to change your mind so there is no point.

Can you give me a statement from uber saying they are not of that stance? Because all of the way through the developer diarys and alpha, we were repeatedly told that upgrades and such for commanders were an absolute no because of the fact that they hated upgrades. This also ties into the whole fact into them commenting specifically that the factories are basic and advanced, rather than tier 1 and tier 2 for this exact reason.

Its no rumour.

The common interpretation is obviously not what Uber actually had in mind.

And it only persists like that because nobody comes in and says otherwise... If they'd just come in and say something like "yea that was the original idea but we changed our minds" we wouldn't have a bunch of random rumors and hearsay. People might be upset that they changed their minds, but I'd rather be angry at some changed ideal rather than not knowing what the ideal is in the first place! You can't argue for/against something if you don't even know what stance the other side is taking.

I think this is one of the big issues between the community and Uber as this sentiment *isn't* really accurate.

Uber hate upgrades in the literal sense of the word. What they don't like is the system we saw in SupCom- click on this metal extractor and it morphs to T2, or similarly in the Blizzard 'craft' games- build this structure, at which point you can improve stat 'X' or 'Y' of unit 'A' with no visible difference. It creates arbitrary barriers to certain units (like requiring combinations of structures to 'unlock' a unit with no obvious reason why), and means that in a fight between two visually identical units one can be significantly better than the other due to hidden buffs from the upgrade system.

That is categorically not the same statement as *we are against direct upgrades of unit roles* however. I think people took Uber's stance on the game mechanic of 'upgrades' and a classic RTS style 'tech tree' and have extended the meaning to balance. TA had units that are (at a basic level) upgraded version of weaker units (e.g. Raider -> Reaper, 1 is a single barrel sturdy tank, the other is a double barrel studier tank, they share lots in common).

Which some people call a flat T2, and others call a upgrade.


Causing much grief to this day.

Yeah allot of this comes down to interpretation and I think in this case people interpreted something that Uber never said or promised

They're goal as far as I can see is WYSIWYG, which is something they have achieved. If I see my opponent has a dox, I know it's the same as one of my dox. A dox is a dox, simple. Now I've heard complaints that the slammer is too similar- it's essentially a bigger dox (with a torp launcher bolted on)- however that *doesn't* cause confusion. It is a different unit, it looks different. Just because it's a stronger unit in the same role- it isn't and 'upgraded' dox. If they made a 't2 upgrades factory' that instantly doubled the health and fire power of all your *existing* units, that is what Uber meant when talking about upgrades. You'd have no idea what your getting into until you commit an army to a fight and loose everything due to the invisible buff that had been applied.