Question for Caydr and other stuff
Moderator: Moderators
-
Guessmyname
- Posts: 3301
- Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 21:07
-
TheRegisteredOne
- Posts: 398
- Joined: 10 Dec 2005, 21:39
tro's humble 2 cents:
When you come to think of it, AA, and all other rebalancers are (were) attempts to "fix" OTA's balance. OTA's balance, by many's standards, are also very reasonable. So why are rebalances made? Because certain individual got "pwned" by the flash rush, line-bombing, hawk swarm, or some other time-tested tactic and decided the game is unbalanced and must be fixed. There is no perfect balance, there is never a perfect balance, so stop trying to make it! :O!! don't rebalance whenever someone becomes clever enough to figure out a winning strat and pwn some newbie! make a good balance and stick with it!
on this point i agree with the AA fanboy
When you come to think of it, AA, and all other rebalancers are (were) attempts to "fix" OTA's balance. OTA's balance, by many's standards, are also very reasonable. So why are rebalances made? Because certain individual got "pwned" by the flash rush, line-bombing, hawk swarm, or some other time-tested tactic and decided the game is unbalanced and must be fixed. There is no perfect balance, there is never a perfect balance, so stop trying to make it! :O!! don't rebalance whenever someone becomes clever enough to figure out a winning strat and pwn some newbie! make a good balance and stick with it!
on this point i agree with the AA fanboy
If I hear one more person say this mod is the "most balanced" mod for spring, IM GOING TO KILL THEM.. Balance is such a massively subjective thing its not even funny.. My idea about how something should be balanced is completely different from some others peoples.. so saying a statement like that is complete and utter nonesense..
-
Felix the Cat
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: 15 Jun 2005, 17:30
Acidd, you can stick that argument exactly where you think I'd tell you to stick it if the mighty modhammer weren't hovering over my head.
You're basically inferring that I got pwned by Mavs hence I think His Holiness C_ydr is a bad person, and that you are simply protecting the innocent deity from some form of defiling upon His Holy Name.
I didn't say that C_ydr couldn't balance AA. I said that he hasn't been successful in balancing Mavs in the past, and that they should be taken out. You are the only one saying that C_ydr can't balance AA.
I am of the opinion that Flashes and Gators are close to balanced in the current version of AA. They might be a tiny bit overpowered as compared to their role, and ideally I'd like to see them a little bit weaker and easier to kill, if only to make Stumpies and Raiders more needed, since currently it seems like a better idea to make a pure swarm of Flashes than to make a mixed swarm of Flashes and Stumpies or a pure swarm of Stumpies.
It does appear that C_ydr just messes around with numbers for the sake of messing around with numbers. I don't doubt that some or much of that messing around with numbers is justified, and I certainly appreciate the new additions and balance corrections that have been made.
Just because C_ydr puts in time to making AA doesn't give him a right to be considered infallible and free from sin. Last I checked you had to be elected by a conclave of cardinals to be considered as such.
Finally, let me introduce you to the form of a logical argument:
A: Statement
B: Counter-statement
A: Riposte
B: Counter-riposte
A: Counter-counter-riposte
...and so on.
Let me introduce you to the form of an Acidd argument:
A: Statement
Acidd: You must be like 12 and you suck at life.
A: Further statement
Acidd: STFU you fool.
The first form of argument is not the type that incited this thread. The second one is. If you have something to say, say it. If your only defense is to insult someone's age, personality, or gender, then you're the one who needs to stop talking.
The first form of argument is a mark of intelligence. The second is a mark of fanboyism and blind following of someone like a lemming.
I'll be sure to tell C_ydr that you appreciate his work, though; I'm sure you wouldn't dare approach His Holy Presence, for to do such would be defiling His Holy Name and Works.
You're basically inferring that I got pwned by Mavs hence I think His Holiness C_ydr is a bad person, and that you are simply protecting the innocent deity from some form of defiling upon His Holy Name.
I didn't say that C_ydr couldn't balance AA. I said that he hasn't been successful in balancing Mavs in the past, and that they should be taken out. You are the only one saying that C_ydr can't balance AA.
I am of the opinion that Flashes and Gators are close to balanced in the current version of AA. They might be a tiny bit overpowered as compared to their role, and ideally I'd like to see them a little bit weaker and easier to kill, if only to make Stumpies and Raiders more needed, since currently it seems like a better idea to make a pure swarm of Flashes than to make a mixed swarm of Flashes and Stumpies or a pure swarm of Stumpies.
It does appear that C_ydr just messes around with numbers for the sake of messing around with numbers. I don't doubt that some or much of that messing around with numbers is justified, and I certainly appreciate the new additions and balance corrections that have been made.
Just because C_ydr puts in time to making AA doesn't give him a right to be considered infallible and free from sin. Last I checked you had to be elected by a conclave of cardinals to be considered as such.
Finally, let me introduce you to the form of a logical argument:
A: Statement
B: Counter-statement
A: Riposte
B: Counter-riposte
A: Counter-counter-riposte
...and so on.
Let me introduce you to the form of an Acidd argument:
A: Statement
Acidd: You must be like 12 and you suck at life.
A: Further statement
Acidd: STFU you fool.
The first form of argument is not the type that incited this thread. The second one is. If you have something to say, say it. If your only defense is to insult someone's age, personality, or gender, then you're the one who needs to stop talking.
The first form of argument is a mark of intelligence. The second is a mark of fanboyism and blind following of someone like a lemming.
I'll be sure to tell C_ydr that you appreciate his work, though; I'm sure you wouldn't dare approach His Holy Presence, for to do such would be defiling His Holy Name and Works.
-
Forboding Angel
- Evolution RTS Developer
- Posts: 14673
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43
Now what I find funny is when AA fanboy's start flaming each other. That is priceless! 
On caydr's balancing scheme, he should probably go back to the version that he put out that buffed core and start again from there. That version was very good.
Re instituting the techforges would be a good idea as well, due to the fact that there were oddly enough not as manay balancing issues when TF's were around. It was a big mistake imo to move away from techforges as this was the main thing that made AA original from other TA clones. Moving away from the techforges turned it into basically another TA clone.
The main reason AA is so hard to balance is the fact that it has skewed so far from what the game originally was that there is no actual laid out eventual goal laid out for it. That incidentally happens to be the biggest problem with AA, is the fact that there is not design documentation written up for it.
The point of a design doc is that you model the mod to your design doc and once everything is in place as you intended, all you need to do it tie up the loose ends.
Caydr's goals in his patches are to fix whatever ppl are complaining about atm. If he has originally sat down and written documentation on what he wanted every unit to be good at, bad at, why, how, he would not be making the "Horrible" choices that he makes in his mod.
It's not that he's doing everything wrong, it's the fact that he has no clear goal in sight (or even laid out). That is the problem.
On caydr's balancing scheme, he should probably go back to the version that he put out that buffed core and start again from there. That version was very good.
Re instituting the techforges would be a good idea as well, due to the fact that there were oddly enough not as manay balancing issues when TF's were around. It was a big mistake imo to move away from techforges as this was the main thing that made AA original from other TA clones. Moving away from the techforges turned it into basically another TA clone.
The main reason AA is so hard to balance is the fact that it has skewed so far from what the game originally was that there is no actual laid out eventual goal laid out for it. That incidentally happens to be the biggest problem with AA, is the fact that there is not design documentation written up for it.
The point of a design doc is that you model the mod to your design doc and once everything is in place as you intended, all you need to do it tie up the loose ends.
Caydr's goals in his patches are to fix whatever ppl are complaining about atm. If he has originally sat down and written documentation on what he wanted every unit to be good at, bad at, why, how, he would not be making the "Horrible" choices that he makes in his mod.
It's not that he's doing everything wrong, it's the fact that he has no clear goal in sight (or even laid out). That is the problem.
-
Forboding Angel
- Evolution RTS Developer
- Posts: 14673
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43
-
El Capitano
- Posts: 156
- Joined: 13 Oct 2006, 10:48
Like hell it is. At the very basic level, balance is where every tactic has a counter-tactic that costs less. Pretty much nobody argued that Dawn of War was balanced prior to the current patch and the jury is still out on that one. Balance can also be measured by match statistics. Over a long enough time frame, you can look at things like win ratios of Arm vs. Core (or whatever sides your mod has) to see if it's roughly equal. If it's not, then you have a problem, either pros are choosing one particular side or the sides aren't balanced for the maps that get played.Fanger wrote:If I hear one more person say this mod is the "most balanced" mod for spring, IM GOING TO KILL THEM.. Balance is such a massively subjective thing its not even funny..
Of course, one does have to make a choice about what maps people balance around, but that doesn't actually tend to vary that much, in reality. Most people don't balance around maps like SpeedMetal and the major variation is probably based around map size and how hilly it is.
In the end, you can measure balance objectively, just look at any critical analysis of Starcraft's balance.
-
Guessmyname
- Posts: 3301
- Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 21:07
That logic is screwed to hell...El Capitano wrote:Like hell it is. At the very basic level, balance is where every tactic has a counter-tactic that costs less.Fanger wrote:If I hear one more person say this mod is the "most balanced" mod for spring, IM GOING TO KILL THEM.. Balance is such a massively subjective thing its not even funny..
-
Deathblane
- Posts: 505
- Joined: 01 Feb 2006, 01:22
Hmm, I'd say that's one part of ballance.
Thinking about it, absolute ballance at it's most basic conceptual level is that no one strategy is more powerful than any other strategy. Which is basically what El Capitano said.
But on to of that you then have to factor in gameplay choices, map choices etc etc.
So if something grossly violates the primary principle (generally exemplified by some overpowered unit that can win the game when solely produced) then the game can be considered imballanced, but I don't thinks it's possible to state anyhting more than that as many imballances are in fact gameplay features.
Thinking about it, absolute ballance at it's most basic conceptual level is that no one strategy is more powerful than any other strategy. Which is basically what El Capitano said.
But on to of that you then have to factor in gameplay choices, map choices etc etc.
So if something grossly violates the primary principle (generally exemplified by some overpowered unit that can win the game when solely produced) then the game can be considered imballanced, but I don't thinks it's possible to state anyhting more than that as many imballances are in fact gameplay features.
-
El Capitano
- Posts: 156
- Joined: 13 Oct 2006, 10:48
How so? Any tactic that isn't counterable for cost (or, ideally, less) will inevitably be exploited. Witness things like Defiler spam in the original Dawn of War. It ruined games because that's all the enemy built. If you were facing a Chaos player, you had to assume Defiler spam and try your hardest to counter it. It forced you into one particular strategy, rush them and hope you do enough damage before the Defilers started popping out. Ultimately, it lead to monotomy. Eldar were forced into Brightlance spam, Space Marines had to build Dreadnaughts and rocket launchers and Orks were just screwed. If you massively outplayed the spammer, you might be able to pull off a victory, but it took a hell of a lot of work and the hope that your opponent was dumb. Any solution that requires your opponent to be worse than you is flawed.Guessmyname wrote:That logic is screwed to hell...
So, please tell me how having tactics that aren't counterable for cost is screwed logic.
-
El Capitano
- Posts: 156
- Joined: 13 Oct 2006, 10:48
Do you have some examples of such gameplay features?Deathblane wrote:So if something grossly violates the primary principle (generally exemplified by some overpowered unit that can win the game when solely produced) then the game can be considered imballanced, but I don't thinks it's possible to state anyhting more than that as many imballances are in fact gameplay features.
-
Guessmyname
- Posts: 3301
- Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 21:07
I'll explain:
"At the very basic level, balance is where every tactic has a counter-tactic that costs less."
To show this, I'll use an example:
Tactic 1 costs 5
It's counter, Tactic 2, is balanced according to your logic, and costs 4
As Tactic 2 is a tactic, it must also have a counter, which must also cost less: Tactic 3, which costs 3
Tactic 3's counter is Tactic 4, which costs 2
Tactic 4's counter is Tactic 5, which costs 1
And what of Tactic 5's counter? For this to cost less, it would have to cost nothing. In which case, this counter-tactic (tactic 6) would be the one used all the time, as it has no real counter (it's counter would also have to be free, and so would that's counter, and so forth and so forth), and is free.
See how it is flawed?
"At the very basic level, balance is where every tactic has a counter-tactic that costs less."
To show this, I'll use an example:
Tactic 1 costs 5
It's counter, Tactic 2, is balanced according to your logic, and costs 4
As Tactic 2 is a tactic, it must also have a counter, which must also cost less: Tactic 3, which costs 3
Tactic 3's counter is Tactic 4, which costs 2
Tactic 4's counter is Tactic 5, which costs 1
And what of Tactic 5's counter? For this to cost less, it would have to cost nothing. In which case, this counter-tactic (tactic 6) would be the one used all the time, as it has no real counter (it's counter would also have to be free, and so would that's counter, and so forth and so forth), and is free.
See how it is flawed?
-
El Capitano
- Posts: 156
- Joined: 13 Oct 2006, 10:48
Fair enough, I'll rephrase as "at most the same cost". Keep in mind, though, that different damage types will typically keep the cyclical balance in check. For example, no amount of anti-air will take out a single ground unit (in AA), yet a small amount of air units can take out a lot of ground units and a small amount of anti-air can take out a lot of air units.
That is extremely broad view of balance.. however how that is applied into the game is SUBJECTIVE.. IF I think Unit X should counter Unit Y, and joe thinks Unit Z should counter Unit Y... Which one is right, becuase the game can be tweaked so that either Unit X, or Z can counter Y.. Thus it comes down to a matter of opinion. Of course every tactic should have a counter-tactic, but how that is set up is completely opinionated.. SO saying that one mod has better balance than another mod is purely crap opinion that need not be stated..
That clearer for you..
That clearer for you..
-
Deathblane
- Posts: 505
- Joined: 01 Feb 2006, 01:22
The original Arm/Core premise, where Arm were supposed to be better at raiding while Core were supposed to be better at assault. Or in 1944, where the Germans will have defences and super heavy tanks, while the Americans will have numbers.El Capitano wrote: Do you have some examples of such gameplay features?