Why do we have two different factory tiers?

Discussion in 'Planetary Annihilation General Discussion' started by kingjohnvi, September 14, 2013.

  1. smallcpu

    smallcpu Active Member

    Messages:
    744
    Likes Received:
    72
    That's only true with the current balance of the game. Although the only unit you really need t2 for is the sheller as t1 is missing any artillery. Most other units at the t2 level (not talking about buildings) are less efficient then their t1 counterpart.

    There's the t2 bomber which is superiour (does so much more damage) and the t2 missile ship for a mobile catapult. (Don't have enough experience about bots to say how the t2 bot is.) But those are nice to have while the other units (t2 tank, t2 figher for example) are actually slightly worse in most situations.

    But thats only an issue because currently t2 isn't very different then t1 besides having bigger numbers. If we have t2 where its really sidegrades and niche units, staying at the basic t1 level should be much more viable.
  2. nanolathe

    nanolathe Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,839
    Likes Received:
    1,887
    Again, you're using 'If' statements. Anything can be solved by just saying 'If this were the case'.
    Making those 'ifs' a reality is much more difficult than just saying it.

    And that relies on the developers intentions matching up with your own for it to even be a possibility.

    So far the Devs have been very cagy with outright stating their intentions that hasn't just been the usual PR hot air.
    Last edited: September 15, 2013
  3. GoogleFrog

    GoogleFrog Active Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    235
    I agree, it would be nice to know more about the intended direction for the game design. There are many ways to produce a 'well balanced' system but they put emphasis on different things. For example it is entirely possible to have interesting single unit spam, the game would just be about large scale troop movements and placement.
  4. bobucles

    bobucles Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,388
    Likes Received:
    558
    Well, the whole purpose of a good balance designer is to make the game as difficult to "solve" as possible. You do this by staying away from hard counters, which create very few branches in gameplay. You do it by creating abilities that have intangible power levels, like transports or hover or stealth or shrouds and the like. You do it by creating soft counters that rely on unique factors to excel, like the d-gun(instadeath, energy use) and reclaim(metal value, lathe power) and AA(speed, range) and wreckage(durability, value) and death blasts(unit size, endurance, blast strength). You do it by creating as much interplay as possible between every single layer and every single unit in the game.

    I try to make that apparent in my posts, and strive to whack the dev team with the knowledge bomb as hard as possible so they can understand that too.

    When you see a post here stating "X should beat Y", they basically don't care. They want to play RPS and have set up a foregone solution to how the game should be played. What's the point of strategy, if you already know what to do and how it will end?
  5. gunshin

    gunshin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    790
    Likes Received:
    417
    not sure what game you guys are playing where quick tech 2 wins matches, but its certainly not in pa. you guys realise why we spam t1 until we get 500+ metal income right? there is far more value for t1 in the early game opposed to t2.
    zaphodx likes this.
  6. GoogleFrog

    GoogleFrog Active Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    235
    I haven't done this myself but T1 turrets are really good against T1 units. They can be used for a "fast" T2. Several T1 factories are still built for Ant spam.
  7. gunshin

    gunshin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    790
    Likes Received:
    417
    so what your saying is that you want to sacrifice even more map control by building turrets?
    tatsujb likes this.
  8. frankablu

    frankablu Member

    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    4
    "
    The game Go on the other hand IS solveable, even though not by machines yet. You can't win by points gained, but the starting player gets a bias and it is possible to carry the bias over which results in a 100% win chance for the first player when playing perfect. This is an obvious flaw in the rules (the bias).
    "

    You have this all upside down.
    Go is unsolvable. Chess is solvable.

    There are
    2.08168199382×10^170 possible game board states in Go.

    There are only 10^78 atoms within the universe. There are insufficient atoms within the universe to record all the possible game board states. Hence Go is unsolvable.

    Additionally, in Go, the second player gets an additional 6.5 points to their score at the end of the game to compensate for the first player going first. There isn't any flaw as far as I can see.

    Chess on the other hand has 4.8 * 10^53 possible game board states and is solvable.
  9. GoogleFrog

    GoogleFrog Active Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    235
    It doesn't matter how many atoms there are in the universe. Go has nothing to do with the universe. It's still solvable.
    nanolathe likes this.

Share This Page