Why don't we start directly in T2?

hey it's something. I'd swam youtube servers if i could but I'm hanging of a thread with my current internet and it's causing a number of problems.


I went on to make a no cheating 1v1 with the same guy playing as if in a real match the plan being him : t1, me : t2 but my internet crashed, after two tries of this we gave up.

You'll notice I didn't get all out corrupt and try to push the results into a box, I did admit t1 was pretty much helpless against a combination of turrets walls and shields. we didn't add t1 arty into the lot but I'm doubtful it would have changed the outcome that much, still, the fact of the matter remains : even with overcharge, in supcom the commander would die to ~20 t1 tanks. ...not the current in TA, ...so we can't keep claiming we're trying to get away from FA with the desire to make the com a bit less OP.

I didn't test turrets alone VS t1 units, I know that wouldn't have been as conclusive, but at least with walls it would have differed from current PA balance and quite closely resembled more of what people are striving for with the current turret debate : https://forums.uberent.com/threads/laser-turrets-are-too-cheap-t1-land-armies-have-vanished.57704/


I maintain. As surprising as it may sound, we're advocating for balance from FA.

Best of luck to you in that. I'm going to take my own conclusions from my experience with FA however, and avoid the usual power creep associated with teching up. I dislike the mechanic intensely.

One thing to consider for all those who think that a flat tech tree, i.e. immediate access to all build options, inevitably leads to thoughtless Newtonian counter-play barring any semblance of strategy.
This holds true only under a very strong assumption: Complete and symmetric information. As soon as intelligence becomes as scarce a resource as metal was supposed to be you have to make tough calls - and those become tougher in a flat tech tree than in a deep one where the number of options is inherently more limited in each stage.

edit: assumptions

But I'm not arguing for a tech tree where the options are more limited in each stage. I'm arguing for a tech tree where progression up the tech tree widens what options are available to you without restricting previous choices.

Because that's what depth means. As opposed to complexity, which is the system you describe as a deep tech tree

But in such a tiered tree you still have tiers differing in the number of options they provide. The fact that higher tiers always lead to strictly more options still leaves you with more limited options in the beginning - which there is no need for.

I don't miss Alpha, I do miss the simplicity in the balance and the more interesting battles..
altho those t2 bombers, Dont miss them.

On topic more, I would love to see both the balance they are currently trying and the current community specialized tier option. (no leveler or slammer and no t1 specialized units (just dox, tank and anti air )
The largest problem with the balance ATM is ranged units don't follow a linear force progression, ranged unit have a squared force progression (more evident when focused fire is used), so the power difference goes up exponentially

What else is there, those are the best parts of a good rts.

"Ya don't miss the old version we only lost all the parts of a good RTS every developer would kill to have." <.<;;;;;

Or to put it another way, "The game is so much better now that the balance is hard-to-understand/awkward/overlycomplicated and battles are much more boring/unsatisfying."

I'm referring to Sins, where early game options are still available late game.

Before Rebellion's Titans broke stuff. Even then, you can send multiple fleets to multiple places.

And you are right in your assessment. But you cannot deny the fact that a strictly expansive tech tree has by definition less options in the beginning than in the end.

I understand the general concern, and I do not deny that fact.

1. I've never seen it done well
2. If it was to be done well, it would require a redefinition of the role of certain units
3. IT doesn't produce any benefit for building tall, rather than wide

PA's current system fails because there are multiple units are available later game whose role overlaps early game units, while also having an additional role.

There is a way to fix that issue - more role definition for each unit, where roles can overlap, but not so much that it leads to an imbalance.

This is exactly the same as what the proposed Specialised and Basic system will have to do

The difference is there is no pacing, there is no "building high", there is no consolidation in the design. It's all about building wide, and not improving what you have.



Besides that, I don't see the point.

Take Vehicles, specifically, take the Sheller.

Under that system, it's available at the beginning of the game.

Why?

• It is designed to hit crowds of units, and big high health targets from range.
• Neither of which exist in the early game - economies are small, few units are on the field.

It's not that there aren't options. The options aren't needed. So instead, the game is designed so that a user new to it doesn't get overwhelmed with how much stuff they "could build", and instead builds what they will need there and then.

I'd point out that Zero-K does the same thing for new users.

Besides, it's not like the options aren't available. In the current way the game is balanced, you have those same options. Opportunity costs are just high. Lowering opportunity costs will result in exactly the same game, you just have to invest less in each decision.

NO , What your saying is that there would be one factory that can make all the units. I dont like that idea. Its fine the way it is. I mix T1 with my T2 late game. I think guys need to learn just how to experiment and play the game better.