Another balance considerations: reloaded

[albator]

Hi ! :D

I noticed noone replied to the import part of the thread so I am just reposting it hoping poeple will actually react.


Pakage 1: make all those 3 changes at once

- panther: +30 % E-cost: discuss 100 times: panther is spammable by engineer and have 2 weapons, that is the better click and hope for the best unit.
- croc ! +30% E-cost: Croc is amphibious and you are supposed to pay for that ability.
- T3 arm amphib : remove AA missile (unit is fast, amphib, good hp, that is ultimate raider and core cannot stop it without blades on FFA)


T3 arm bantha : decrease EMP resistance : 50% -> 20%, +10% M-cost
cans: remove AA abilities

Mortier: +20 % E-cost

[Jazcash]

Should've asked a mod to just delete off-topic posts or something rather than make a new thread as these types of threads all eventually go off-topic at some point or another.

Would be nice if BA a specific place to report individual balance issues and then votes for or against the proposals with discussions below. Each report would be specifically for a single change instead of bundling a bunch of changes into one thread and then making it a complete clusterfuck for BA devs to scout through and pick out what they're looking for.

As for your suggestions, I disagree with all of them. Only thing I partially agree with is that Morties need a nerf, but I only partially agree because I don't think increasing their E-cost is the way to do it.

Certainly don't agree with your Bantha and Marauder suggestions. And "Can's AA abilities"? Just because they can fire at Bladewings and do a good job doesn't mean they have AA abilities. Besides, Bladewings are OP.

[Pako]

What is with the hate against strategy recently? If you don't know what strategy is read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_(game_theory) (short article, please read)

Some examples for the retards here:
-decreasing com metal -> less strategy
-decresing effectiveness of nuke -> less strategy
-nerfing EMP silo next to useless -> less strategy
-increasing tac. nuke range -> more strategy but imba
-decreasing vulcan effectiveness -> less strategy
-decreasing vulcan health -> more strategy
-decreasing fatboy effectiveness -> less strategy
-removing combomb -> less strategy
-increasing special damages -> more strategy but partly hidden
-decreasing lab cost -> less strategy!
-increasing MM efficiency -> ??
-decreasing MM efficiency -> longer games
-nerfing panther -> slightly less strategy but more balance
-nerfing croc -> less strategy and not much more balance

When there is too much strategy the randomness of a game increases and the skill level becomes more demanding and the less smart "stumpy spammer" players will hate the game.

There is strategy skills and there is realtime skills, currently BA needs a lot more realtime skill than a year before and BA never has had much pure strategy gameplay.

Big battles have more strategy, in 1v1 mostly the only strategy is deciding which lab to choose rest is mostly tactic and skill. Have you noticed that most small game and skilled players hate combomb? The reason is they hate too deep strategy and love winning by skill.

Good game needs some randomness for the casual players and some skill and "pure strategy" for the competitive 1v1 players.

Sorry for derail but more important is the direction of balance changes than fiddling with small unit stat changes. TFC did a great job for years to some quite sane direction, now there is no balance changes in a long time and no-one to even handle it.

Small committee or one designer would be good but democracy will just fail. Still discussion is always good.

Personally I would like more strategy, more randomness and better measurement for player skill(ELO, ladder, tournaments). Still I wouldn't change almost anything new, only thing I care about is FFA gameplay to keep mostly the same.

"BA is not all stumpy spam"

[smoth]

everyone I played table top with called the strategy your overall battle concept(shock and awe, blitzkrieg) with tactics(what your article calls finite strategy) being smaller squad movements and tricks. Things like the bunkers on Omaha would have been tactical placements as part of the over all beach defense strategy. Where the rangers attacking point du hoc was a tactic, kamikaze was a tactic. Stinger strikes before the invasion of a city tactic as part of the invasion strategy.

I find the terms get debated a lot on meaning and have yet to see one person really "know" what the words mean beyond definitions and posturing over who is the better commander.

so tactics = finite strategies or whatever you want to say doesn't really matter, you post really really comes off as condescending starting it that way. Better to just give us a lexicon of how you feel the terms should be used and be done with it rather than an appeal to authority leveraging wikipedia.

*edit*
should be clear this is not a flame just an aside before the thread gets derailed with too much about who is the better commander as these threads generally do.

*ps*
not that I agree or disagree just trying to suggest some things to keep the discussion about concepts instead of whose meta concept is correct.

[Jazcash]

The "strategy" you are referring to, Pako, implies levels of effectiveness between units. For example, AA would be super effective against air and air would be not very effective against AA. This is the kind of strategy you see in games like StarCraft where there are certain types of units that directly counter other certain types of units.

Weren't armordefs removed from BA? I don't really know what exactly those were or how they worked but I thought they were that kind of thing. Could be wrong. Probably am.

Anyway, I'm not too sure I want that kind of strategy in BA. It makes combat very stale and promotes the same response every time to certain situations.

[albator]

@Pako:

Nerfing those 3 unit precisly are MORE strategy cause they all the best click-and-hop-for-the-best unit.

Code: Select all

- panther: +30 % E-cost: discuss 100 times: panther is spammable by engineer and have 2 weapons, that is the better click and hope for the best unit.
- croc ! +30% E-cost: Croc is amphibious and you are supposed to pay for that ability.
- T3 arm amphib : remove AA missile (unit is fast, amphib, good hp, that is ultimate raider and core cannot stop it without blades on FFA)

And precisly, those 3 unit are the most common use in ffa (with karg and razorback), all those 5 cause there are BA's hydralysk

-removing combomb -> less strategy

+1

[Pako]

@Pako:
Nerfing those 3 unit precisly are MORE strategy cause they all the best click-and-hop-for-the-best unit.

Click and hope is actually more strategy and less skill, whether you like it or not.

Though those changes are quite fine and won't change strategy almost at all. Changing croc slightly weakens strategical attack from under sea lab.

Starcarft is not a perfect game and BA can be even better even though SC has had real professional designers.

[smoth]

I think starcraft is mostly tactical/finite strategy. BA's strength is through variety you have MORE tactics with more tactics comes the possibility of more strategies.

[Ares]

in a single game of Rock-paper-scissors, each player has the finite strategy set

BA has never been a strategy game by this definition. x beats y beats z beats x games are fun and can be successful (see starcraft). But its abstraction from this is what defines TA and all its offSpring.

There are a few rigid strategy elements, but the vast majority of units possess multiple roles for every conceivable scenario. This is what gives BA its dynamic nature.
>sub>battleship>destroyer>sub
>emp>anti>nuke>emp>
>bomber>tank>aa>bomber>

I would like more strategy, more randomness

I disagree with this, it can be interpreted as a contradiction.

only thing I care about is FFA gameplay to keep mostly the same

FFA gameplay is balanced by interactions between players rather than than interactions between units, unlike 1v1s for example.

[MrCucumber]

Only thing I agree with is the panther change, in a 1v1 between core and arm, even if both players reach T2 at the same time Panthers are easily spammable, take out blade-wings (core's only real strong point at this point in the game) and dominate the T1 units. If the panthers and core's T1 units go in a head on fight, the panthers just destroy, in run by tactics you lose so many more tanks then the enemy loses panthers. You might have a couple of T2 units such as crocs or Reapers but the faster, higher DPS panthers will just wreck you. Lets not forget that they are pretty much the same cost of a stumpy or raider. Raising the E cost of them will the army trading with panthers coming faster to reinforce then core tanks and arm winning easily, at least until the core player can afford to spam reapers or get goli's or something to fight them with.

[Niobium]

Lets not forget that they are pretty much the same cost of a stumpy or raider.

Panther: 307m + 4200e/50 = 391
Raider: 211m + 2200e/50 = 255
Stumpy: 201m + 1921e/50 = 240

If the panthers and core's T1 units go in a head on fight, the panthers just destroy

Cost-for-cost, core T1 units beat panthers head on. Gators, raiders, levelers, take your pick.

[Johannes]

If the panthers and core's T1 units go in a head on fight, the panthers just destroy

Cost-for-cost, core T1 units beat panthers head on. Gators, raiders, levelers, take your pick.

Not true if the panther player micros at all.

[albator]

-_-

[Johannes]

Cost-for-cost, core T1 units beat panthers head on. Gators, raiders, levelers, take your pick.

I can only assume you made a typo and exchange "arm" with "core" here


Stumpy beats raider (cost much more Energy and need more bp to make it which requires energy) PLus they speed and turn rate makes easier for them to escape plasma

flash kill gathor when in range and since flash are faster that is easy.

Janus out-range riot and with new pathing that is really easy to do.

Plus I don't count the fact all arm unit are faster which mean they can be in better number on the battle field.

What does this have to do with panthers ?

[albator]

Cost-for-cost, core T1 units beat panthers head on. Gators, raiders, levelers, take your pick.

I can only assume you made a typo and exchange "arm" with "core" here


Stumpy beats raider (cost much more Energy and need more bp to make it which requires energy) PLus they speed and turn rate makes easier for them to escape plasma

flash kill gathor when in range and since flash are faster that is easy.

Janus out-range riot and with new pathing that is really easy to do.

Plus I don't count the fact all arm unit are faster which mean they can be in better number on the battle field.

What does this have to do with panthers ?

OK my bad I missed read

[Cheesecan]

Beat for cost?? Panther is completely superior to any t1 unit for cost. It even has aa. Lol!