Uber has been making balance decisions *by feel* or *on the fly* since Beta. We can piece together a reason for each change, but not a distinct purpose to the whole picture. There was a hint of a purpose in their live streams and the Kickstarter (big armies, big battles, smash planets, etc), but the balance direction didn't always follow that stated vision. For balance to ever become a release-ready feature without the need for game-changing adjustments, Uber needs to set a specific and concise purpose and vision for the balance of PA. It needs to be usable in the context of individual balance decisions (so saying 'we want big armies' wouldn't really work because it's very open to interpretation) without being unnecessarily specific (bombers shalt have 100 health and cost 150 metal). Establishing this purpose, the WHY of PA's Balance, is a key piece towards reviving interest in the game for both enthusiasts and casuals. Casuals would feel less overwhelmed by massive changes to the balance because there is a pattern to follow. Veterans would have a framework with which to measure each unit for feedback or usefulness. Either they do this now or we do it later. Finding the WHY always happens in organizations - it's just a matter of when and how painful the new policies or changes will be. It will be more work later than now. It's already tons more work to find and implement the WHY than it was back in Beta. How bad will it be in another year? Two? Five?
Ahh, the why every modder asks when creating a new balance. I know the feel. But I do understand ubers problem, in one of my older mods "IGNWarzone" I tried to create my own balance by feel, and it is really really hard. Even when trying to set a base to well BASE your balance off of it can be very difficult to know how different everything should be from the base. I believe Blizzard even has a secret method of doing this, to more or less good effect.
So this is the part that I really disagree with in your OP. You are implying here that because Uber doesn't have a VISION about the balance for PA, balance mods are better. Uber has a vision, and I don't know how you could think they don't. You then go on to say this: This makes me mad because in your OPINION those balance mods outperformed Ubers. Something I do not agree with, but you are using that as a motivation for us as a community to work out the WHY for PA. And let's be honest, the WHY of this post is actually because you don't like Uber's balance.
They don't because they have stated that they balance by feel. Put another way, they cross each bridge individually and tackle them as if they were separate issues. Again, this isn't something I pulled out of the sky. Uber has gone over this multiple times in multiple livestreams and forum posts. Help me understand your side here. Why do you think Uber's balance is better? I never said that in this post. I've said it in the past, sure, but it isn't why I created this thread. My opinion isn't relevant - the fact that PA is stagnate is very relevant. Offtopic Section! Also, I'd like to point out that assumptions like that are among the reasons why BrianPurkiss left this community. You can't assume people have an ulterior motive just because you feel like it. Brian and I always will want the best for PA and its community no matter our opinions. This is bigger than anyone's agenda, and it should remain that way.
I don't think saying that they balance by feel means there is no vision. I think feel is a very good way to test ideas to see if they match with your vision. As an example. When RCBM and Statera were made, was the balance completely computed from their visions in the first go? No. There were iterations. But how were decisions made with regards to stat changes? Let me guess. Games were played and based on how the units felt their stats were modified so that they match the vision of the balance. Therefore, you can't use the fact that people at Uber said they balance by feel as a means of proving that they don't have a vision. Do you have any other evidence?
What evidence do you have? I've got evidence they started with a purpose, a WHY. I've also got evidence Uber abandoned that purpose somewhere in the middle of Beta. Balancing by feel IS a good way to test ideas. You just can't ignore statistics in the process. For RCBM, the balance was almost completely laid out in the beginning. They were very specific. Statera did much the same thing, but they weren't as detailed as the Realm guys. That's one way to do it, yes. Statistical analysis was also used for RCBM. I dunno about Statera - stuart would know, though. Go back. That's a logical fallacy. Nothing you just said proves your point. You can't pull a conclusion out of thin air. Also, since when do I need to prove that something DOES NOT exist? That's close to impossible. Show me Uber's WHY that they have been using to base balance decisions and I'll sit down. Hey! Don't forget: "Help me understand your side here. Why do you think Uber's balance is better?"
ubers balance is better because i like it more, and more people out there do to. my opinion but also based on the fact that no one liked a balance mod enough to make a ladder for it, or any of the tournaments for balance mods were even remotely successful. yet the community made a community ladder for ubers balance. made guides. tournaments, everything all based around ubers vision of balance. the competitive and casual groups of players still play more vanilla then anything. i actually really like the balance right now. i cannot find a single exploit in a unit that just wins without composition because it can be countered. people just assume that you need to do 1 unit and just spam it. every unit has a counter and those have counters. the balance is allot deeper then what most people that are not that great at this game give it credit for.
Ant4Lyfe is better and needs to be integrated into the vanilla game because I like it more. *too And it didn't occur to you that this is because more people have played it? It's hard to like something you haven't played over something that you have. It's also worth pointing out that of the two dozen+ people who have played my indev mod, [name withheld] over the last 36 hours, only one complained about it and nearly everyone who used chat praised it.. Or there just haven't been enough players because of the very fact that it is a mod That's my fault for being a derp, not the mod's. Imagine that, people doing things for the vanilla game. It's also worth noting that Uber's vision has drastically changed since I'd say December of 2013 from how things were originally going to be, and changed again in April and yet again when TVinita took over balance. "Uber's Vision" doesn't exist and I'm not even sure that the people doing the balance even have a vision right now. Mainly because it's the vanilla game. Do you really think that if vanilla was the mod and RCBM the vanilla game back in October that more people would still have played vanilla over RCBM? There is no point to be found in your statement. And I actually don't. That may be balance, but is it fun? How many viable strategies are there? Can you rush T2? Can you turtle? You are forced to expand and counter expansion and there are only two viable and one semi-viable main line ground->ground combat units. While this is an oversimlplification, when are you ever building more than the following units? Dox booms ants spinners infernos hummingbirds bumblebees. There's not a whole lot of viable options and that's very fixable, we have plenty of models lying around. But is it fun? How much strategic deviation is possible? Is the competitive ceiling based on strategic flexibility and intellect or is it based on how fast you can click?
Okay, lets have a look at some things you have said so far: Implying that Uber doesn't have a vision, because they "stated that they balance by feel". I will refer to this again later. Uber has abandoned "that purpose" which I assume to mean their vision? Apparently you also have evidence of this. And pretty much all of this quote implies that Uber doesn't have a vision: Now here is something else you said: If you are wondering why I would like you to prove that Uber doesn't have a vision, it has something to do with the fact that you have said this so many times; just in this thread too. The reason I want you to prove it is not because I actually expect you to go and find evidence for it; it's actually because you have assumed they don't, and I want you to evaluate the evidence you have. If you do have this evidence, and you say have it, I would like to hear it please. Okay, so you acknowledge that balancing by feel is a valid way to achieve a vision. That was the point I was trying to make. I then go on to state that therefore you have not proved to me that Uber doesn't have a vision because in your words: So this is a statement predicated on the notion that balancing by feel means there is no vision. This is the statement I was attacking with my post. It was not a logical fallacy, I guess I just didn't make things clear enough for you. As stated in the OP, this thread is about the WHY, not the WHAT.
Ah don't bother dom. Basically all that is happening here is mered learning something new from being with that spaceship game he is involved in now. And then self projecting an assumption that other people are living in ignorance of his discovery. I wouldn't outright say it's childlike or personally attack mered like that, but i would say it is characteristically childish. Maybe with good intentions, but he could have worded his op alot differently. The thread really has no purpose other than to scold uber and tell them how to 'balance'. As a side note, you can always tell who to take seriously by whether they can actively distinguish between balance and design. * Tvinita always has reasons for his changes, and you can tell that those reasons have a bigger picture. Solving individual problems always add up to a bigger picture, and it is dumb to suggest that they don't. Sometimes he does things we may disagree with for good reason or not, but quite honestly i think it's pretty rude to jump the gun and say he's a dumb idiot who has no vision. He's a smart dude with alot more hit than miss. And sometimes what we think are misses turn out to be hits instead. Gameplay now is immeasurably smoother (without looking at bugs, which is another issue) than when he was brought on - the time before 1v1 ladder.
Well, i kinda had a big argument about all the hidden armor mechanics. I also want to understand why uber choose to have somuch hidden mechanics for nukes en ubercannons and stuff. My youngest brother absolutely raged like crazy because he had no indicator that ubercannon armor was in the game. Its definitly something that you can only know if you experienced it before, there is no anti-ubercannon statpoint visible or anything. Kinda lame if you ask me that the ubercannon is like the extremely weak version of the D-gun from the original TA. Also, if someone asks how can i know its doesn't do **** against buildings, you can't really explain that.
@reptarking - Stuart did a good job of arguing your points, so all I'll say is that the entire post is your opinion, not a logical case for why Uber's balance is better. You're saying that you feel it's better, and that's that. @elodea - I'd like to understand where you are coming from. What statements did I make that brought on your opinion that I made bad assumptions? Why do you immediately assume I'm out for my own agenda and insulting Uber? @dom314 - Thank you for being constructive. I need to go digest what you've said by going for a long run. Be back in an hour or so with my reply
I'll start here: "The reason I want you to prove it is not because I actually expect you to go and find evidence for it; it's actually because you have assumed they don't, and I want you to evaluate the evidence you have." All my assumptions are based in facts. Uber had a WHY when the Kickstarter began. The balance's WHY from that period can be summarized like this: "Big armies slamming into eachother, big battles across multiple planets, and planets getting annihilated throughout the course of the game." The Alpha balance was just a stepping stone before many of the gameplay mechanics were in place, so it doesn't really count. However, the Beta balance performed along the lines of this WHY. As time went on, balance changes radically altered the face of PA. The biggest change I want to point at here is the radical T2 changes proposed by Scathis that would have brought PA's T2 more in line with SupCom's T2->T3 upgrade. The changes were radically altered before being placed into the game, but they still changed the face of the battlefield and how players viewed the T1->T2 upgrade. There are big fights between big armies, but these are not prevalent in 1v1 fights unless the planet is of sufficient size (usually larger than Amplus from my experience). Multi planet gameplay is almost non-existent due to the complete lack of options in the orbital layer and the *same, yet different* personalities of T2 units. Etc, etc. The point here is that Uber's balance decisions did not align with the stated purpose. Thus, there are two options: 1) They are balancing as they go along by what 'feels' the best for the situation and have no WHY 2) They have a WHY, but it has been altered from its original state and few know what it truly is. I chose the first option because it aligns with statements made by Uber's balancing team(s) in the past. The second one doesn't contradict previous behavior from the Uber team concerning balance, but it is less likely due to the above statement.
Just curious what you think the WHY was behind TA? And TA should never be used as a balance comparison. To me PA is a slower, less micro orientated TA with the diversity that stratera had wanted. Edit: "No, not really. I have a very basic design principle. If adding an idea that has been used by another game will make it more fun, then I put it in. That's all there is to it. " That was Chris Taylor design principle. Fun.
