Making sense of sea balance - Page 2

Making sense of sea balance

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

gyanbasic
Posts: 21
Joined: 30 Sep 2017, 00:11

Re: Making sense of sea balance

Post by gyanbasic » 03 May 2018, 14:57

accidental post*
Last edited by gyanbasic on 03 May 2018, 15:04, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

gyanbasic
Posts: 21
Joined: 30 Sep 2017, 00:11

Re: Making sense of sea balance

Post by gyanbasic » 03 May 2018, 15:00

accidental post*
Last edited by gyanbasic on 03 May 2018, 15:03, edited 2 times in total.
0 x

gyanbasic
Posts: 21
Joined: 30 Sep 2017, 00:11

Re: Making sense of sea balance

Post by gyanbasic » 03 May 2018, 15:02

MasterBel wrote: long post
Well if you dont know then let me tell you that there were many attempts to change sea balance. Back in noize's day and when beherith was dev and saktoth and det were testing 1v1 sea and trying to come up with a plan and no in doo and flows time as well. always small changes thinking that its just a matter of tweaks to the numbers and that was what was attempted many times and never worked.
I think it would be a waste to repeat the same process again that obviously did not work.
And you think that what offered doesnt solve the problem because you havent been thinking about sea long enough in fact you barely know how it works or plays or ever played.
For example sea sub scouts were chosen to make sure we can still use underwater mexes without having awkward scout ships shooting underwater.
The whole point of early subs is to eventually get rid of them instead of them always being a possibility to build.
I dont want ot get into details because Since you barely gave any of it any thought it would be pointless. Come to discord and we can talk bout it in voice.
This is why i said you should try and ocme up with a solution of your own. Then you will understand the issues which you clearly dont now.
0 x

Ares
Posts: 306
Joined: 19 Mar 2011, 13:43

Re: Making sense of sea balance

Post by Ares » 03 May 2018, 15:30

sea was good until t2 torp was removed and t3 hovercraft were added, this is opinion held by many top players - ask adolf or cart or others
0 x

User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3555
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: Making sense of sea balance

Post by Silentwings » 03 May 2018, 17:28

This claim sounds like an accident of history -- of who came and went. My memory is that of the "top" players (of the day) who got involved were far more interested in the major changes TFC made to T1 sea, and had little interest in that pair of cute (and, as it turned out, basically ineffectual) changes to T2/3. In fact, the changes TFC made were motivated more by weak players than strong ones, since back then the weak players were the ones who really hated sea.

I should (again) add my opinion that the drift towards making sea "be more like land" continues, and I think its boring. Land is already like land. Other ideas in viewtopic.php?f=44&t=36514#p583984.
1 x

MasterBel
Posts: 106
Joined: 18 Mar 2018, 07:48

Re: Making sense of sea balance

Post by MasterBel » 03 May 2018, 22:31

gyanbasic wrote:
MasterBel wrote: long post
Well if you dont know then let me tell you that there were many attempts to change sea balance. Back in noize's day and when beherith was dev and saktoth and det were testing 1v1 sea and trying to come up with a plan and no in doo and flows time as well. always small changes thinking that its just a matter of tweaks to the numbers and that was what was attempted many times and never worked. I think it would be a waste to repeat the same process again that obviously did not work.
I'm aware that efforts were made – not on such a scale though. I must have misinterpreted some things I heard.

But why didn't it work? My assumption is that because they a) didn't have something specific to aim for (other than just "balanced") and b) they were likely considering units in isolation. But I don't know in enough detail to assert that they are the reasons that it failed.
gyanbasic wrote: And you think that what offered doesnt solve the problem because you havent been thinking about sea long enough in fact you barely know how it works or plays or ever played.
Firstly, don't attack the messenger, attack the message. Secondly, you don't know how many times I've played sea. In fact, I've played it quite a bit. Less more recently, though. I actually enjoy sea as it currently is even if I see potential issues. Destroyers haven't seemed particularly OP in my past few games (except against subs) and there has been good variety and back-and-forth and it's not really ever been such that a
gyanbasic wrote: For example sea sub scouts were chosen to make sure we can still use underwater mexes without having awkward scout ships shooting underwater.
The whole point of early subs is to eventually get rid of them instead of them always being a possibility to build.
I dont want ot get into details because Since you barely gave any of it any thought it would be pointless. Come to discord and we can talk bout it in voice.
This is why i said you should try and ocme up with a solution of your own. Then you will understand the issues which you clearly dont now.
Why do we still have to use UW mexes? why can't all ships have a small depthcharge?
I generally can't talk in vc but I'm constantly stalking discord. And I'm always giving this a lot of thought. I did try to make a very simple suggestion, but it kind of got ignored, so I just assumed no one liked it and there was a big elephantish problem with it.

What do you think I don't understand? Could you try to explain them to me?

@Silentwings ty for linking that thread, I'd forgotten about it (oops)
0 x

User avatar
REVENGE
Posts: 2377
Joined: 24 Aug 2006, 06:13

Re: Making sense of sea balance

Post by REVENGE » 12 May 2018, 01:23

I feel like the spirit of TA's sea always revolved around high cost / high damage units, almost as if you started playing the equivalent of land T2 at T1. This made sea gameplay unique and interesting, but also made balancing land+sea based maps difficult. In previous years, any map with decent tidal energy production and more than say 30% area submerged in path-able water could be dominated by sea players. This made games on these maps extremely rewarding for skilled sea players and equally frustrating for land players, which may have contributed to the decline of most sea maps with the rise of DSD.

But I was one of those players who enjoyed abusing the sea, so...
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”