Not on your life.. the amount of ridicule would be over 9000...
The ZOMYGOSH YOU CAN CALCULATE BALANCE people drive me nuts though..
I have a complicated set of equations.. ---> still needs tweaking and testing
I used a random bunch of numbers.. ---> still needs tweaking and testing
you cant make a basic one size fits all setup.. everyone does it their own way.. because balance is of course SUBJECTIVE..
An Introduction to Basic Mod Balance
Moderator: Moderators
I think it would be more interesting if he'd added more variety to the game.
Fang, as I've told you before, you did a nice job for solo work on E&E. Since you've consistetly, blatantly refused to accept that compliment as "enough," and since the work truthfully merits no more as it was boring, there's no point in even bothering with courtesy that'll be ill-received and never returned, so I won't. =)
I do enjoy getting comments from people who haven't read the original post, though, so keep it up. Whole post is just a rough draft for a wiki anyway, so the posts afterwards are meaningless save for whatever sick pleasure I can gain from watching many of you squirm.
So by all means, squirm.^^
Fang, as I've told you before, you did a nice job for solo work on E&E. Since you've consistetly, blatantly refused to accept that compliment as "enough," and since the work truthfully merits no more as it was boring, there's no point in even bothering with courtesy that'll be ill-received and never returned, so I won't. =)
I do enjoy getting comments from people who haven't read the original post, though, so keep it up. Whole post is just a rough draft for a wiki anyway, so the posts afterwards are meaningless save for whatever sick pleasure I can gain from watching many of you squirm.
So by all means, squirm.^^
Good point, but there is a difference between useful and useless variety.Tired wrote:I think it would be more interesting if he'd added more variety to the game.
I mean, for example, what does Core have at T1?
1 Scout Kbot - AK
1 Indirect Fire Kbot - Thud
1 Direct Fire Kbot - Storm
1 Anti-Air Kbot - Crasher
1 Constructor Kbot
1 Scout Vehicle - Weasel
4 Direct Fire Vehicles - Gator, Raider, Leveller, Garpike
1 Anti-Air Vehicle - Slasher
1 Artillery Vehicle - Wolverine
1 Minelayer Vehicle
2 Constructor Vehicles
However, guess what this simplifies to?
2 Scouts
5 Direct Fire Units
1 Indirect Fire Unit
2 Anti-Air Units
1 Artillery Unit
1 Minelayer
3 Constructors
Only seven roles? Even when you separate Minelayer from Scout? Oh, but surely, making the slope tolerances different will help! What about an amphibious unit or two? Nevermind that they're useless! Ah, and the Leveller is... uhm - Anti-Swarm?
Hurm. All those units, so little in terms of function.
You should expand on some of your points, by the by, I've got some things I would add, and if they aren't in when you add them to the wiki, I'll have to.
Simple, Fang. You have the basic ground combat units down, but your air units are not enjoyable - it seems more as though you're filling checkboxes with them than creating specific units for roles. In general for most units, speed variations are low. Range variations, save for the progressive increase over tiers, are low. Turn rate and slope tolerances within faction are low. There are insufficient viable attack options - you have medium range artillery, but the longer range missile artillery is lackluster and accurate to a fault. Accuracy variations are low - whole thing plays a little like Total Annihilation Kingdoms in that respect. Why are nuke impacts so insignificant (and being unable to destroy even some factories with direct hits for a huge cost = insignificant)? Where are the more limited ballistic missile variations (Cruise Missiles)? Where are the satellites I asked about a year ago (stick a long range beam weapon on one with a huge range that defaults to Hold Fire), or any kind of truly high altitude units as I suggested close to two years ago when you were fiddling with FF? Where's the deep information game? Slow scouts and transports and relatively minor radar and overly accurate long-range weapons make intelligence gathering/hiding largely useless, and suprise assaults anything but.
I suppose that if you wanted a complete, organized, and irrefutable list, I'd have to take an hour of my day and fiddle around with E&E until all of the reasons that I found it mediocre are fresh again. Some of the ideas, like the factory hubs, were good ones. Some of the models, like URC Commanders and builders, were very nicely done.
Primarily, though, unit variation and very limited attack form choices were the greatest downsides of the mod, and you could probably benefit from reading the section I've yet to add on unit roles and how to define them. Need more?
I suppose that if you wanted a complete, organized, and irrefutable list, I'd have to take an hour of my day and fiddle around with E&E until all of the reasons that I found it mediocre are fresh again. Some of the ideas, like the factory hubs, were good ones. Some of the models, like URC Commanders and builders, were very nicely done.
Primarily, though, unit variation and very limited attack form choices were the greatest downsides of the mod, and you could probably benefit from reading the section I've yet to add on unit roles and how to define them. Need more?
Wow that was actually helpful, nicely phrased, consistant and somewhat along my own line of thinking.. That was different than what I expected..
Yeah I questioned people before about the lack of inter tier variation.. given that the variation is supposed to come from there being that none of the units are ever "replaced" the Aircraft I have taken a looking too.. honestly you might be interested to look at the Epic EE version I was kicking around.. it goes some way to giving roles to more items.. aircraft are differentiated a bit more, as is AA.. The Missile artillery being overly accurate can now be addressed, the non missile artillery was never too accurate by my thought, but with missiles you only had wobble.
Anywho.. I dont think I didnt listen or dismissed your comments.. I may have forgotten them.. I have been trying to work out some more options but some of the reasons things didnt work so well was not so much me but the engine and its limitations in certain areas..
Yeah I questioned people before about the lack of inter tier variation.. given that the variation is supposed to come from there being that none of the units are ever "replaced" the Aircraft I have taken a looking too.. honestly you might be interested to look at the Epic EE version I was kicking around.. it goes some way to giving roles to more items.. aircraft are differentiated a bit more, as is AA.. The Missile artillery being overly accurate can now be addressed, the non missile artillery was never too accurate by my thought, but with missiles you only had wobble.
Anywho.. I dont think I didnt listen or dismissed your comments.. I may have forgotten them.. I have been trying to work out some more options but some of the reasons things didnt work so well was not so much me but the engine and its limitations in certain areas..
Yarr. Maybe you can figure out some things with the next Spring update - smoth tells me that KDR's adding in bouncing projectiles or something. =P
On the Epic scaling side, I was actually thinking of a way to epic size FF and make it more like a 4x hotseat game RTS patterned off of the awesome '95 game Stars!, but it'd take a huge amount of lua work. ~~
Anyway, I'll try to see what I can come up with for variety for E&E if I ever get some motivation again. =\
On the Epic scaling side, I was actually thinking of a way to epic size FF and make it more like a 4x hotseat game RTS patterned off of the awesome '95 game Stars!, but it'd take a huge amount of lua work. ~~
Anyway, I'll try to see what I can come up with for variety for E&E if I ever get some motivation again. =\
30% actually, and only to health. Partly necessary due to the tboat, as now land and sea units can attack eachother directly. All that being said corvette is probably a bit OP in CA, as CA was forked before the vette got a damage buff in BA and hover was the way to go in all cases.Tired wrote:Well Sak, I'm comparing this to +60% to all naval units because "naval sucks" and "math is stoopid so balance things with arbitrary, seemingly emotionally attached decisions."
Id like to see what your formula has to say about sea though (But im sure you'd have to use a bunch of special cases and exceptions anyway, no?).
OTA was a good game but there are only so many times you can re-invent the wheel. If you want to introduce a mathematical formula which can be applied to any mod, its probably best not to rely on tricks like 'Air costs more energy, just do it!'. Energy costs essentially make something later game, and make it more difficult to spam earlier on.Obviously, all declarations of how things must be or will be are arbitrary. If you think that you can do better than OTA, and essentially all OTA-based mods, manged, then I'd love to see it.
Energy is the hallmark of an established economy (as is lots of workertime) so upping the buildtime or energy cost on something helps to place it in the later game and prevent it from being cost-effectively spammed early on. Its important to understand the use and implication of this tool, rather than tying it to air as if it is mandatory for air in any mod.
Oh, come on, you love it. Otherwise you wouldnt spend all your time pimping and defending your mod.You think I like having to do my own work?
Im sorry, what? This is a game Tired, of course its founded on mathematics. However, if you want a mathematical system that takes every single element of the game into account you have... well... the game itself. Prettymuch.Tired wrote:As a lot of mathematicians and physicists have spent some few centuries proving, everything in nature is predictable by mathematical means down to the level of quanta, at which point everything is still statistically measurable.
A mathematical model is good as a basis (Say, for re-doing BA t2, which seriously needs it), but in the end it comes down to what happens in game. Your mod can be perfectly well balanced, but if its just plain boring to play, well, thats a shame isnt it.
Gameplay testing is the most important factor in balacing, not some odd numbers. It would be possbile to throw ALL factors in equation but would be horrible complicated.
Where does your formula take account in lets say penetrators firing angle and turnrate? Yet this is imporatant in balacing it as it does fkin 500 dps for 1337 cost.
I smell filthy feet in your theory, tired. Its only good for academic purposes and you could balance a game with 3 units and fixed map with it.
Where does your formula take account in lets say penetrators firing angle and turnrate? Yet this is imporatant in balacing it as it does fkin 500 dps for 1337 cost.
I smell filthy feet in your theory, tired. Its only good for academic purposes and you could balance a game with 3 units and fixed map with it.
To whoever asked about Penetrators, simple - it only has a 120 degree fire arc and slow turning, so divide the weapon power by 3. Oo
To whoever asked about the differences in accuracy and velocity inherent in weapon types, in most cases OTA did beautifully with these by default for given unit roles, so for an OTA-based mod, dps can simply be dps.
ginek, you can smell my feet all you want to no effect - the proof to bring down my argument's been presented to you in game format. I specifically changed elements of units as I personally thought necessary to allow them to better fulfill their specific roles, but every time I did so I reran them through the same costing template for a renewed value, which works. Unit roles were specifically considered, but unit costing balance "just happened," and I observed that it was good.
Sak, you write a lot, but you don't seem to have anything objective to say. =)
Are you contesting that a rose by any other name would not smell as sweet?
I made some (very) minor turning rate adjustments to a very few naval units to allow them to use their natural advantages of speed and range, and gave Destroyers their deck lasers back (which I'd aesthetically missed), and used the costs that the formula provided. Destroyers are actually more expensive in TA than in BA.^^ Drive Destroyers straight into hovercraft, and they'll get raped - that is so duh that when I see it happen I can't even draw the sarcasm forth required to comment on it. Skirt the edges, driving in only when a force is weakened, and you're good to go, which you can here. Corvettes can drive straight in for a slightly better than even fight pound for pound as Hovers pay 20% extra for their movement category.
BA torpedo launchers are pathetic, btw. Easily fixed.
For a final note, Sak, I started to balance out CA with a similar (faster, actually, and less spammy) formula, and someone threw a fit about it, so if you'd like to see firsthand what my looney, ever so complex, formulas have to say, then you'll have to apply the tiniest independent packet of discreet thought possible and make your own. =P
To whoever asked about the differences in accuracy and velocity inherent in weapon types, in most cases OTA did beautifully with these by default for given unit roles, so for an OTA-based mod, dps can simply be dps.
ginek, you can smell my feet all you want to no effect - the proof to bring down my argument's been presented to you in game format. I specifically changed elements of units as I personally thought necessary to allow them to better fulfill their specific roles, but every time I did so I reran them through the same costing template for a renewed value, which works. Unit roles were specifically considered, but unit costing balance "just happened," and I observed that it was good.
Sak, you write a lot, but you don't seem to have anything objective to say. =)
Oh? And here I thought overall costs or restricted access did that. Still, I'm glad to see that you believe something that's so entirely and obviously untrue. You could as easily adjust mexs, metal makers, nanos, or any number of unrelated original structures to make Metal and Build Power more restrictive. Way to stick with the wheel~^^Energy costs essentially make something later game, and make it more difficult to spam earlier on.
Funny you say that. I still see new tire designs every year.OTA was a good game but there are only so many times you can re-invent the wheel.
For air, I understand the use and implications not just of dividing metal costs and multiplying energy and build time costs, but having access to the air special movement category and a modified general formula that, in my case, only counts speed once as well. Air is sharply differentiated from ground, yet still effective in one way, and ineffective in another. If you can't perfectly balance an air to ground relationship (and there's a lot of wiggle room just shy of perfection), then you can at least apply the same template to all of air to get all of air on the same page.Its important to understand the use and implication of this tool, rather than tying it to air as if it is mandatory for air in any mod.
I do enjoy this for two reasons, and two reasons only. The first is that I can't seem to trust anyone else for balancing out a mod properly. The second is that the mod, and its naming especially, make some people so mad.^^Oh, come on, you love it. Otherwise you wouldnt spend all your time pimping and defending your mod.
Are you contesting that a rose by any other name would not smell as sweet?
And here's the best part of all. Excluding only the special costing conventions added to air, every other combat unit in the game falls cleanly into this formula. From Flash Tanks to Bulldogs to Merls to Annihilators to Corvettes to Anacondas to Halberds to Destroyers to Battleships to LRPCs to Krogoths to Monkeylords, every single non-air unit in the mod fits into the formula, and air fits in with the application of a simple template.Id like to see what your formula has to say about sea though (But im sure you'd have to use a bunch of special cases and exceptions anyway, no?).
I made some (very) minor turning rate adjustments to a very few naval units to allow them to use their natural advantages of speed and range, and gave Destroyers their deck lasers back (which I'd aesthetically missed), and used the costs that the formula provided. Destroyers are actually more expensive in TA than in BA.^^ Drive Destroyers straight into hovercraft, and they'll get raped - that is so duh that when I see it happen I can't even draw the sarcasm forth required to comment on it. Skirt the edges, driving in only when a force is weakened, and you're good to go, which you can here. Corvettes can drive straight in for a slightly better than even fight pound for pound as Hovers pay 20% extra for their movement category.
BA torpedo launchers are pathetic, btw. Easily fixed.
For a final note, Sak, I started to balance out CA with a similar (faster, actually, and less spammy) formula, and someone threw a fit about it, so if you'd like to see firsthand what my looney, ever so complex, formulas have to say, then you'll have to apply the tiniest independent packet of discreet thought possible and make your own. =P
or...2 Scouts
5 Direct Fire Units
1 Indirect Fire Unit
2 Anti-Air Units
1 Artillery Unit
1 Minelayer
3 Constructors
2 Scouts
5 Direct Fire Units
1 Indirect Fire Unit
2 Anti-Air Units
1 Artillery Unit
2 Defense constructor (and minelayer)
2 Resources constructor
Its from my mod last version being tested.
Now kbots are defence builders, as they can climb places vehicles can't.
and vehicles are resources builders, as they are faster to expand limits and build fast.
A little bit of wargame's history can be useful.
Obviously I'm concentrating in naval matters, as I love it, but it serves as example.
Since the XIX century, strategists tried to develop math systems to reproduce real conditions of battle, that would help to simulate strategic & tactics.
The prussians created the Kriegspiel, that was developed a lot through a hundred of the years.In naval matters, the precision of the maths was so good that WW2 battles played before they happened, showed the SAME unpredictful results.
One of them is the battle of Midway.The Combined Fleet headquarters simulated a huge wargame for test the plan, and some carriers were sunk.As unfortunatelly for the Japanese, the empires "refloated" these ships in the game, but in the real battle they can not do it.This is exactly what happened..maths prevailed.
A retired admiral of U.S.navy. ADm. Pratt created a naval wargame in the thirties that was played in ballroons by dozen of people in New York city.One of these simulations caused a lot of stirr and critics, because "its not possible", when the german pocket battleship Graf Spee, was defeated by some british cruisers..and this, too
, was exactly what happened.
Before the age of the computers, calculus must be made by dozen of people, and the todays wargames math was based in that.
Also Roleplaying games were created, based in the same caractheristics.I have, in the Wargamers Digest of seventies I found in a bookseller, the first apparition of this kind of game.
If somebody would be interested, I can find some ADM. Fletcher Pratt rules and put here.
IMHO, the balance of a wargame not is made by change main data of Gators and Flashes, but something like the people are discussing here.
VonGratz
Below, wargames in U.S. Naval War College.
Obviously I'm concentrating in naval matters, as I love it, but it serves as example.
Since the XIX century, strategists tried to develop math systems to reproduce real conditions of battle, that would help to simulate strategic & tactics.
The prussians created the Kriegspiel, that was developed a lot through a hundred of the years.In naval matters, the precision of the maths was so good that WW2 battles played before they happened, showed the SAME unpredictful results.
One of them is the battle of Midway.The Combined Fleet headquarters simulated a huge wargame for test the plan, and some carriers were sunk.As unfortunatelly for the Japanese, the empires "refloated" these ships in the game, but in the real battle they can not do it.This is exactly what happened..maths prevailed.
A retired admiral of U.S.navy. ADm. Pratt created a naval wargame in the thirties that was played in ballroons by dozen of people in New York city.One of these simulations caused a lot of stirr and critics, because "its not possible", when the german pocket battleship Graf Spee, was defeated by some british cruisers..and this, too
, was exactly what happened.Before the age of the computers, calculus must be made by dozen of people, and the todays wargames math was based in that.
Also Roleplaying games were created, based in the same caractheristics.I have, in the Wargamers Digest of seventies I found in a bookseller, the first apparition of this kind of game.
If somebody would be interested, I can find some ADM. Fletcher Pratt rules and put here.
IMHO, the balance of a wargame not is made by change main data of Gators and Flashes, but something like the people are discussing here.
VonGratz
Below, wargames in U.S. Naval War College.
I'd like to see those formulas applied to the rx78 and rx78g3 of Gundam. They have exactly the same specs except the 78 is much more expensive, in a test version even the same weapon but the rx78g3 is a lot worse than the rx78, simply because the 78 has a 360° firing arc and the g3 is only 210° or so. In practice that allows the 78 to stay out of range of most main battle units indefinitely. Even factor 3 won't cut it there.
What's with multiple weapons? E.g. the ez8 has both a midrange weapon and a really shortrange one, it can weakly snipe stuff at range or rush in and rape up close. How much of which weapon should be considered for the formula?
There's also the thing about expected opposition. E.g. a chargelgoog will be able to eliminate most of the expected opposition when it first appears since most T1 units either have shorter range or shit accuracy at that distance. There are plenty of units that will overpower the chargelgoog but all of them are usually later in play (or at least not fielded in significant numbers at the time).
And what's the cost formula for hardcapped units (e.g. heroes), anyway? What's arced shots worth, how much do I subtract for inaccuracy?
What's with multiple weapons? E.g. the ez8 has both a midrange weapon and a really shortrange one, it can weakly snipe stuff at range or rush in and rape up close. How much of which weapon should be considered for the formula?
There's also the thing about expected opposition. E.g. a chargelgoog will be able to eliminate most of the expected opposition when it first appears since most T1 units either have shorter range or shit accuracy at that distance. There are plenty of units that will overpower the chargelgoog but all of them are usually later in play (or at least not fielded in significant numbers at the time).
And what's the cost formula for hardcapped units (e.g. heroes), anyway? What's arced shots worth, how much do I subtract for inaccuracy?
Not as much as you might think.
Multiple weapons are simple to deal with, even if they have different ranges. Each receives full cost as normal and they're summed as in the example of the Krow. If a medium range unit has a short range weapon, consider it a boon for when enemy units close in, and unless the dps is extraordinarily high, the cost of the unit won't be significantly impacted, as Range*Speed*dps on the medium weapon will have a much greater cost effect. Destroyers are a good example of this principle in action with their deck guns.
In the case of the Chargelgoog (whatever that is), it's either too slow to catch opposing units in all situations, will cost a great deal more, or is out of balance as per this formula.
Arc shots are a fine example of how well OTA developed its unit roles with unique weapons - the advantages and disadvantages inherent generally cancel each other out. Arch over your own units to fire more at once, but risk having enemy units drive under the arc. Banishers fire arched rockets that're every bit as effective as plasma or lasers because 1) they home and 2) they can hit aircraft. Krogoth rockets fall into the same category. Artillery miss a lot, but an intrinsic element of fire support artillery is AoE - even LRPCs do impressive collateral damage with their misses.
High dps/AoE vertical rockets that don't home on moving targets are designed to fight statics. If you keep this theme in mind, then you'll generally design units around this principle. In the case of TA, I was handed an easy shortcut in that most weapons are already attached to appropriate units and balanced in and of themselves so that the shortcut of simply viewing range as range and dps as dps could be applied. Accuracy or inaccuracy can be dealt with as imbaczek suggests, but look at the case of the EMG. Generally inaccurate, but when firing as a mass they'll hit something. Keep in mind the role that you want the weapon to fit (its intended target), and as long as it can deal with that target appropriately accuracy isn't a great concern. More on this theme when I get around to adding the segment on unit roles and how they're defined.
The case of the rx78g3 is a case where I'd apply characteristics to define a unit role, KDR. Its acceleration and turning rate would likely be lowered so that it couldn't easily escape skirmishing units sent to counter it. This is predominantly because I left turn rates and accelerations to intuitive experience as a shortcut, changing what I felt needed to be changed as I felt it was needed on such basis. Obviously, this runs counter to the application of a mathematical model, and is the reason that I referred to my formula as a helper instead of absolute - it's incomplete, and not even a great formula - it's just one that works. I will note, however, that the rx78 being a "lot" more expensive and a "lot" more effective sounds suspicious. Applied to my example formula, the difference in unit costs would probably be less than 30%. Is their movement turning rate and their weapon turning rate different?
For a non-TA based mod, I might suggest addition to the example formula. Instead of double valuing Speed, I might suggest a single value instead - Movement - which would be a composite of Speed%*Acceleration%*TurningRate%.
For hardcapped units, I'd need an example. Give me a sample idea of a Total Annihilation "Hero" unit that I can fiddle with.
Multiple weapons are simple to deal with, even if they have different ranges. Each receives full cost as normal and they're summed as in the example of the Krow. If a medium range unit has a short range weapon, consider it a boon for when enemy units close in, and unless the dps is extraordinarily high, the cost of the unit won't be significantly impacted, as Range*Speed*dps on the medium weapon will have a much greater cost effect. Destroyers are a good example of this principle in action with their deck guns.
In the case of the Chargelgoog (whatever that is), it's either too slow to catch opposing units in all situations, will cost a great deal more, or is out of balance as per this formula.
Arc shots are a fine example of how well OTA developed its unit roles with unique weapons - the advantages and disadvantages inherent generally cancel each other out. Arch over your own units to fire more at once, but risk having enemy units drive under the arc. Banishers fire arched rockets that're every bit as effective as plasma or lasers because 1) they home and 2) they can hit aircraft. Krogoth rockets fall into the same category. Artillery miss a lot, but an intrinsic element of fire support artillery is AoE - even LRPCs do impressive collateral damage with their misses.
High dps/AoE vertical rockets that don't home on moving targets are designed to fight statics. If you keep this theme in mind, then you'll generally design units around this principle. In the case of TA, I was handed an easy shortcut in that most weapons are already attached to appropriate units and balanced in and of themselves so that the shortcut of simply viewing range as range and dps as dps could be applied. Accuracy or inaccuracy can be dealt with as imbaczek suggests, but look at the case of the EMG. Generally inaccurate, but when firing as a mass they'll hit something. Keep in mind the role that you want the weapon to fit (its intended target), and as long as it can deal with that target appropriately accuracy isn't a great concern. More on this theme when I get around to adding the segment on unit roles and how they're defined.
The case of the rx78g3 is a case where I'd apply characteristics to define a unit role, KDR. Its acceleration and turning rate would likely be lowered so that it couldn't easily escape skirmishing units sent to counter it. This is predominantly because I left turn rates and accelerations to intuitive experience as a shortcut, changing what I felt needed to be changed as I felt it was needed on such basis. Obviously, this runs counter to the application of a mathematical model, and is the reason that I referred to my formula as a helper instead of absolute - it's incomplete, and not even a great formula - it's just one that works. I will note, however, that the rx78 being a "lot" more expensive and a "lot" more effective sounds suspicious. Applied to my example formula, the difference in unit costs would probably be less than 30%. Is their movement turning rate and their weapon turning rate different?
For a non-TA based mod, I might suggest addition to the example formula. Instead of double valuing Speed, I might suggest a single value instead - Movement - which would be a composite of Speed%*Acceleration%*TurningRate%.
For hardcapped units, I'd need an example. Give me a sample idea of a Total Annihilation "Hero" unit that I can fiddle with.
Imagine a flash with anything in between 2x and 3x the speed of your usual flash, 4-6x hp, 5-10x dps, 2x-3x the range and unit limit of 1. Gundam probably uses different multipliers, but the idea is clear - a unit that will die alone pretty easily if not microed and will turn boatloads of units into junk when handled properly.Tired wrote:For hardcapped units, I'd need an example. Give me a sample idea of a Total Annihilation "Hero" unit that I can fiddle with.
Oh, piece of cake. There are two ways to handle such a unit.
The first is to run it completely through the formula like everything else. To a lesser degree, Mavericks are an example of the potential results. (Crap! Forgot to mention that Mav regen was factored in by CombatRegenRate*BattleTime[13.5] and added to Health.) They can run all over the place and trash tier 1, staying just out of range and healing all damage in a very short time. They can take on similarly costed Reaper tanks 1v1 and both will likely die as a result. 10 Mavs versus 10 Reapers and the Mavs are toast. Reapers have slight AoE, and against massed dps, their regen's largely negated.
The second way to run it, since the units are unique, is to completely unbalance them (as per Commanders). Who cares what the unit costs when you can only have one each? Make it fly and fart poison gas with laser beams coming out of its titties and the music from Omen playing and.... One D-gun to kill a Krog - how fair is that? The important things in such an instance are 1) that everyone has access to these units and 2) that they're balanced against each other. If they can kill everything else on the map, then I guess everyone's gonna want one - gg.
The first is to run it completely through the formula like everything else. To a lesser degree, Mavericks are an example of the potential results. (Crap! Forgot to mention that Mav regen was factored in by CombatRegenRate*BattleTime[13.5] and added to Health.) They can run all over the place and trash tier 1, staying just out of range and healing all damage in a very short time. They can take on similarly costed Reaper tanks 1v1 and both will likely die as a result. 10 Mavs versus 10 Reapers and the Mavs are toast. Reapers have slight AoE, and against massed dps, their regen's largely negated.
The second way to run it, since the units are unique, is to completely unbalance them (as per Commanders). Who cares what the unit costs when you can only have one each? Make it fly and fart poison gas with laser beams coming out of its titties and the music from Omen playing and.... One D-gun to kill a Krog - how fair is that? The important things in such an instance are 1) that everyone has access to these units and 2) that they're balanced against each other. If they can kill everything else on the map, then I guess everyone's gonna want one - gg.