Competitive planetary annihilation reduced to the zergling rush, the marine all in and the poxy gate

Discussion in 'Planetary Annihilation General Discussion' started by judicatorofgenocide, December 12, 2014.

  1. judicatorofgenocide

    judicatorofgenocide Active Member

    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    176
    In my experience, following the meta watching the replays preforming the same t1 t1 t1 t1 t1 = uber (top tier) trying t2, trying com pushes,trying expanding, trying variety = silver/gold.

    This is from the exact same player, with way more games played in lower leagues. It seems, climbing to greater unit diversity = impossible. It seems, expanding = impossible. It seems though the potential for greater variety in games played we are limited by balance.

    I dont value micro, I dont value macro. What I do value is entertainment in thousand upon thousands of games played. I thought I could avoid the repetition of starcraft 2 by coming to pa, but it seems pa is limiting it self in entertainment and not using its unit base, and cool technologies, and epic game enders based off balance.

    1v1's should have t2, orbitals, astroids, and annhilasors! Yet all you can use to make even high gold is t1 t1 t1!

    What a wasted potential.
    Last edited: December 12, 2014
    Auraenn likes this.
  2. cola_colin

    cola_colin Moderator Alumni

    Messages:
    12,074
    Likes Received:
    16,221
    First my general statement to this: It's all because of the horrible t1 energy! Ready my essay about it now and send uber mails promising them glory if they fix it!

    apart from that: Yeah I agree. I am sure somebody will pop up claiming they "expand" in 1vs1, but I am sure their definition of "expand" will not include starting proxy bases in the early game. At least my definition of "expansion" does that.
    Not to mention I'd also like to see orbital, t2, navy and at least nukes in the end of the game. 1vs1 doesn't need to regularly feature annihilasors, but a nuke or two, or maybe five are fun.
    Auraenn, pieman2906, Murcanic and 4 others like this.
  3. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
    1v1 are cool when they get into slugging matches.

    But it kinda doesn't happen.
  4. theseeker2

    theseeker2 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,613
    Likes Received:
    469
    confirming t1 energy is the main thing preventing t2 expansion, needs to be cheaper or produce more energy or else it isn't possible to upgrade to t2 and keep up t1 unit production at the same time
  5. Killerkiwijuice

    Killerkiwijuice Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,879
    Likes Received:
    3,597
    I really hope the devs look at these threads, especially @tvinita . Although the current PTE balance is looking very promising so I think it will be much better soon.

    Its hard to balance a game for the 1v1 side and the other pole, massive orbital games.
    Auraenn, cptconundrum and squishypon3 like this.
  6. squishypon3

    squishypon3 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,971
    Likes Received:
    4,356
    Personally I half agree on that last bit, it's surely possible. :3
  7. cola_colin

    cola_colin Moderator Alumni

    Messages:
    12,074
    Likes Received:
    16,221
    t1 pgens might be too weak in general or not for the t2 jump, I am not sure of that. On t1 alone the main issue is that it costs just soooo much more energy to build structures than it costs energy to build huge and deadly armies.
    xankar and Killerkiwijuice like this.
  8. Killerkiwijuice

    Killerkiwijuice Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,879
    Likes Received:
    3,597
    Let's not forget that T2 is basicaly impossible on the small maps right now anyway.

    Maybe we'll see T2 on the PTE maps, but even then it's not worth it.
  9. squishypon3

    squishypon3 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,971
    Likes Received:
    4,356
    It's not necessarily map size, map size just gives you more time to get to the point. The real issue is t2 cost in relation to t1, and the severe energy deficiency at t1.
  10. theseeker2

    theseeker2 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,613
    Likes Received:
    469
    and the severe energy excess at t2...
  11. cola_colin

    cola_colin Moderator Alumni

    Messages:
    12,074
    Likes Received:
    16,221
    yeah the balance is weird on t2 as well. t2 engineers are waaaay better to use than t1 engineers and t2 pgens on top of that are better than t1 engineers.
    kayonsmit101, squishypon3 and igncom1 like this.
  12. Killerkiwijuice

    Killerkiwijuice Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,879
    Likes Received:
    3,597
    Ok I have a few proposals to deal with T2 balance other than energy changes.

    We could:
    • Make T2 units so strong that once you get them, the opponent would have to get them also or they lose. I am not particularly fond of this idea since T1 units would be cancelled out.
    • Make T2 eco so efficient that getting it will boost your economy far past the opponents economy. More than current T2 eco.
    • This is my favorite idea: Decrease factory costs, increase T2 combat unit cost, and boost efficiency of T2 eco structures. The better T2 economy would require more, and smarter fabber allocation, and encourages expansion with a better economy but no more room. This essentially combines all ideas and merges them into something that looks good on paper but may or not play well in-game.
    Yeah.
    Last edited: December 12, 2014
    Auraenn likes this.
  13. squishypon3

    squishypon3 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,971
    Likes Received:
    4,356
    But aren't they exactly the same efficiency and same efficiency per cost only double the speed? =o
  14. MrTBSC

    MrTBSC Post Master General

    Messages:
    4,857
    Likes Received:
    1,823
    i don´t disagree that economy changes might benefit earlier t2 but i am still of the opinion that it also map dependand regarding how many mexxes a player has access to and how far they are spread out ...
    the other question is weither or not to change t1 mex income, change energyoutput of t1 pgen and/or reduce powerconsumption of fabbers per metal


    1. ABSOLUTLEY NOT ! go play supcom then
    2. it does long already
    3. what´s the point in this then if it doesn´t play well? we want t2 to not be too easy to get but but not too difficult either we don´t want to overcomplicate gameplay
    Last edited: December 12, 2014
  15. squishypon3

    squishypon3 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,971
    Likes Received:
    4,356
    No no no, don't make t2 something that if someone gets it, the other must, other wise it's rush t2 or lose.

    We don't want a huge risk vs reward, it skews the fame way to far, even further than it already is. =/
  16. Killerkiwijuice

    Killerkiwijuice Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,879
    Likes Received:
    3,597
    Yeah I don't want that.
  17. cola_colin

    cola_colin Moderator Alumni

    Messages:
    12,074
    Likes Received:
    16,221
    Ofc it is also map dependent. Nobody denies that. But the issue is more than just maps right now.
    I'd combine a reduction of the metal income with an efficiency improvement on t1 engineers and a reintroduction of reclaiming.

    http://pa-db.com/compare?v1=74525 (stable)&v2=74525 (stable)&u1=fabrication_bot&u2=fabrication_bot_adv

    Actually let's list some relevant stats on this:

    the t2 fabber uses 37.5 energy per metal spent.
    the commander uses 50 energy per metal spent
    t1 land factories use 45 energy per metal.
    the t1 fabber uses 100 energy per metal spent, more than twice as much as all the others!

    Getting energy via t1 pgens build by a fabber yields you a net energy plus 75 seconds after the pgen is completed.
    Getting energy via t1 pgens build by a commander yields you a net energy plus 37,5 seconds after the pgen is completed.
    Getting energy via t2 pgens build by a t2 fabber yield you a net energy plus 20,25 seconds after the pgen is completed (!!!!!)

    A few similar comparisons with the metal economy:

    Building a mex costs you 150 metal and pays back the metal cost after 21,4 seconds.
    Building a t2 mex costs you 2000 metal and pays back after 83,33 seconds.

    So, as I have said many times before: metal and energy is totally upside down currently. The payback time of t1 pgens build by your main t1 build force is roughly the same as the payback time of t2 mex on t2. The payback time of the t2 mex is like that to slow down the "economy explosion" on t2 we had before this. So basically the t1 pgens have the same payback time as a "meant for slowing down economy growth" late game metal extractor while at the same time on t1 you will need energy per metal spent more than you need it on t2, as the t1 fabbers are close to using THREE TIMES the energy of a t2 fabber.

    WTF. I never calculated these exact values, but I am now I really am not surprised at all anymore that the economy feels ... broken.

    I strongly recommend Uber to rethink what these numbers are meant to do.
    Currently they basically do this:
    - force players on t1 towards heavy unit production and low structure production
    - make the t2 jump very very hard as players cannot grow the required economy to make t2 viable.
    - make energy close to being meaningless on t2, giving a player on t2 a massive advantage vs a player on t1. This is very probably a big part of why the economy of t2 players totally runs away from t1 players. The energy needs to be the same as metal: Require a lot more on t2, with slower production of it on t2, compared to t1. Not the other way around.

    I am pretty surprised the numbers turned out like this. They make no sense to me as they are.
    Last edited: December 16, 2014
  18. eukanuba

    eukanuba Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    899
    Likes Received:
    343
    I think that it is also affected by too much metal and poor defences. In SupCom it was a lot easier to defend mexes, and there was a pretty low limit on the number of mexes available on a map. PA 1v1 maps have far too many metal spots, being able to run 20 factories should not be possible. It allows an exponential steamroll that becomes inevitable by usually halfway through the game.

    There have been games I've played that have gone on longer than 20 minutes but they are rare. Rarer still are games where the outcome wasn't clear by 20 minutes.

    Turrets are all but useless for any group bigger than ten tanks, and ten tanks is nothing at all. Perhaps they could be more expensive and a lot more scary?
    Auraenn and klavohunter like this.
  19. cola_colin

    cola_colin Moderator Alumni

    Messages:
    12,074
    Likes Received:
    16,221
    Too many mex spots are not the problem, if both players can run 20 factories than they will balance each other out. Nothing bad about 20 factories really.
    nateious, Nicb1, klavohunter and 3 others like this.
  20. eukanuba

    eukanuba Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    899
    Likes Received:
    343
    Doesn't work like that though. You have to choose between just tagging as many mexes as possible, and carefully protecting each one as you go. What seems to happen is that one player manages to wipe out all of the other player's mexes outside their base with planes, and then they have free reign to grab all the uncontested mexes dotted all over the map.

    Actually, that sort of implies that the problem is too-strong air. Have to see how the new air balance pans out I guess.

    Why is it seemingly impossible in these games to have air not be OP?

Share This Page