An overhaul of BA balance

[Rumpelstiltskin]

I have been playing Balanced annihilation for many years and IMO it needs a big gameplay overhaul.

First of all, BA should always be balanced based on 1v1 games.
The reason for this is that team games are strongly effected not just by the individual skill of each player and the unit balance and cost efficiency of units but also by the coordination or a lack of it of the 2+ teams.

In 1v1 there is no need to coordinate thus it is easier to judge the different aspects of the balance and see if units labs and tiers are indeed properly balanced.

What this means is that in a 1v1 BA game, if BA is to be properly balanced and designed, most units should be useable and fun to use.
ATM however, when two competent players play, the game usually ends before any of the players get to use any T2 units.
Most 1v1 games, in fact, usually end up with the players using only a small percentage of the BA unit arsenal.
I am about to propose some drastic changes but drastic changes are necessary in order to take BA balance and gameplay to a higher level of polish.

Please read the following with an open mind.

We can identify several possible reasons for that:
1)the defenses are generally not powerful enough to stop t1 forces thus never allowing one of the players to spend the amount of resources a level 2 lab needs without succumbing to a T1 attack force.
2)the defenses might be fine to generate the style of gameplay we all enjoy but the T2 labs are too expensive to be built and thus we almost never see T2 units in team games.

Possible solutions:
1)Make the defenses More able to stop T1 forces thus allowing players to more often be able to spend the resources that T2 labs require and manage to hold off a player who spends them all on T1 units and attacks.
2)Make the T2 labs cheaper.
This will mean players will need to spend less resources on a T2 lab and will have a bigger force to counter the player that uses all his resources on T1 units.

Since I favor the second solution Ill examine it in more depth.
If we were to Make T2 labs cheaper what might be the possible issues we will encounter?
1)We might have an overflow of types of units making many units have roles which are almost identical.
If T2 units become more common in 1v1 games it means t1 units will have less gametime on average.
If we do not want to change the pace of the game or make it more porcy, we will have to fit T1 units plus T2 units into the same time frame.
If a game of 1v1 lasts on average about 30 minutes than now In those 30 minutes we will have to fit the usage of both t1 and T2 units.
Even if we allow the game to extend a bit longer than how it is now, it is very likely that All T1 units will still have less time, during the game, to "show their stuff".
2)making T2 labs cheaper might cause players to construct a T2 lab just to get a T2 builder and than reclaim the lab in order to keep spamming T1 units while the T2 con is constructing t2 mexes.

Solutions:
1)We make t2 labs cheaper while making T2 cons much more expensive and more resilient.
In this way we make sure nobody will build a T2 lab just to construct a T2 con and than reclaim the T2 lab.
2)Since T1 unit gametime will shrink we must first decide what units do we prefer the most and would like to see more of in game.
Some units in the T1 kbot,tank and sea labs will have to be removed.
I know this is painfull and they all seem important to us but if we want to make BA a proper strategy game we need to ensure Most of the arsenal is useable and since we dont want to have every t1 unit only be viable for a very short time during a game we must remove 1 or 2 from each lab.
The same will have to happen with the T2 labs.
Since they have many units we will have to either shrink the variety or make some a lot heavier so they are less viable in most cases.
for example making units like the sumo Goliath and reaper be tougher but also more expensive so When you first build a t2 lab you cannot really efford to invest so much time and money into making one of them and must make some other cheaper t2 units first, before you build up your T2 economy.

problems with SEA gameplay design:
It is not news to anyone that there is a problem with Sea gameplay.
We can see that sea maps are hardly played and most players usually avoid playing sea maps.
Sea units are very expensive and the gameplay in general is very punishing.
If one units dies to clunky pathing you might lose the game.
Corvettes class t 1 ships are extremely expensive to be basic units while submarines are extremely hard to micro and a lose of the extremly costly T2 subs might mean game over in a 1v1.

Solution:

IMO we should make corvette class t1 ships cheaper and allow T1 subs to shoot while turning to make their gameplay less punishing and more fun.

I will not address T2 unit changes more in depth since for those to be accurate we must first allow T2 units to play a more active part in 1v1 games so that we can examine their balance and come to conclusions.

[Beherith]

Hi Basic/Gota/Yan. I thought you did all this in SA?
Since team gametime is at least 10x 1v1 gametime, this most likely wont happen.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

I see your point but it is so in every strategy game yet they are all still balanced based on 1v1 games.
Balancing for 1v1 games also does not mean that team games will become less fun.
It might happen but It might not it is up to us or more precisely up to you as the Dev of BA.
Is it not true that many players have stopped playing BA and the BA Community is shrinking?
Yes there are other reasons which deserve their own threads but the fact that most 1v1 players stopped playing must mean something has gone wrong.
You can say whatever you want about 1v1 players but most of the time these players are the core fans in any RTS game and usually the ones who care about its gameplay the most.

I still think BA can be balanced for 1v1 without ruining or strongly altering team game pace or gameplay and even if it will it might change it for the better or at least give it some needed freshness?

[Jazcash]

Didn't read it all but I strongly agree that there needs to be a more friendly way to transition into T2 and T2 needs to be better at dealing with T1 units.

I've always laughed at anybody who goes T2 in a 1v1, simply because the T2 units you can make don't even nearly justify their cost in comparison to T1. In all honesty, even if T2 labs cost the same as the T1 labs, I probably still wouldn't use them. Mainly because massing T1 units such as Peewees or Stumpies nearly always does a better job vs anything T2 can produce.

I've been playing a lot of StarCraft 2 recently, it really gives you a good understand of what RTS balance should be. The game uses three completely difference and diverse races and it still has hugely better balance than BA which has two very, very similar races.

I'm not sure whether balancing for 1v1 is the best balance concept but StarCraft does it and I guess it works. But then again, StarCraft is primarily a 1v1 scene anyway.

In SC2, you can't just mass the basic units for the whole game (With the exception of Terran). There are ways to make it work ofc by getting fast upgrades and hitting the enemy with timing attacks but it's far more common to see players transition and work their way up the tech tree throughout the game. Unless somebody's going all-in, they almost always have a new structure being built or an upgrade being researched.

In BA, you can pretty much make T1 units for the entire game and come out on top with very little effort. Even vs T2 or even T3 units in some cases. That includes team games and 1v1.

Anyway, I don't agree with changing BA's core gameplay design. It is what it is. If you want something else, make your own spin-off variant like you did or play another game.

If any big changes should be made, they should be experimented with a lot and then implemented into BAR. Making huge changes to BA just as it's coming to end of its life cycle would be silly.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Well if everyone IS switching to BAR than simply address My suggestions as if i was making them for BAR.

[Ares]

BA 1v1 is great, the reason we don’t see t2 is because the balance is so fine if a player attempts to gain an advantage from teching a competent players will have more options and time at their disposal to punish the error.

The cost of the lab is good for the impact of t2 on the battlefield and at high level play every item you build has a high opportunity cost regardless of its role.

Also you complained about a lack of diversity and certain units not getting used, which I can agree with at t1. However, I do not agree that the solution to such a problem is removing "some units in the T1 kbot, tank and sea labs," this reduces choice.

Overall the reason we don't see t2 in BA 1v1s is because the majority of battles take place on smaller fast paced maps, where the balance of power rapidly changes. Even with well matches players they do not often go to t2 because they have so many options at their disposal before it becomes a necessity. I think this is what makes long and skilled games satisfying to watch - as a rare and high stakes treat.

[klapmongool]

I disagree with most of what was said in the opening post. Once this line of thinking becomes a serious consideration for behe I'll explain why this is not the way to go. Given his post this is not likely, so no need to waste time on this.

[AF]

I propose we rebalance BA to be oriented not around team games or 1v1, but around AI games. In any game the multiplayer players are a minority compared to the hidden offline masses

[knorke]

imo it is at least 50% map choice. see starcraft where map balance is as important as unit stats.
pro use of url tag.

[Wombat]

First of all, BA should always be balanced based on 1v1 games.

Stopped reading here...

there needs to be a more friendly way to transition into T2 and T2 needs to be better at dealing with T1 units.

Then i noticed this. And yes, this is true. Problem with t1->t2 are moho mines.
- build expensive t2 lab
- build expensive, slow t2 con (well mainly veh here)
- build expensive moho mines
- build more energy, since after like 3 moho mines you will usually e stall (it usually means building expensive fus).

After watching few games you will realise that this is the moment without much fight (at least from the players who teched, obviously). Its not so bad on maps with a lot of room and good wind, but i suppose it doesnt fix anything.

I've always laughed at anybody who goes T2 in a 1v1, simply because the T2 units you can make don't even nearly justify their cost in comparison to T1. In all honesty, even if T2 labs cost the same as the T1 labs, I probably still wouldn't use them. Mainly because massing T1 units such as Peewees or Stumpies nearly always does a better job vs anything T2 can produce.

Ugh what? Bulldogs/reapers eat t1 veh, zeus/mavericks/pyros/cans eat t1 kbots. There are 2 problems:
- before i actually produce t2 unit, enemy will spam more units and prolly rape my base.
- Few properly used (and repaired) bulldogs or mavericks can eat many t1 units, problem is that on many maps, with few players you will get easly outmaneuvered. If nanos were less effective (or, less nanos could support 1 factory) i would have to spend more metal, on more labs to keep spamming t1 crap (that could balance t2 lab cost). Fixing nanos, which are for me biggest BA issue, could lead to less 'spam everything you can and rush forward' but bigger unit diversity (@ sc2 example)

[tzaeru]

I strongly disagree with increasing the power of T1 defenses or strength of T2 units. As it is, the T1 defense structures do have a purpose even in 1v1 at times and really don't need an extra push to allow sitting in base; I feel this creates less intensive, and as such, less interesting gameplay.

Also, T2 is quite common in team games, often rightfully so. But it is strongly tied to map balance. In many maps, it's extremely hard for 5 players with T1 to overcome 4 players with T1, leaving the 5th player do economy and T2. But I must underline that this is indeed very strongly about the map. For example, in 5v5 going T2 early in Comet Catcher Redux is a suicide.. But in Emain Macha, it's almost granted.

However, it's true that T2 may be a little underused. I think the main issue really is the amount of time there is between deciding going to T2, and actually having economy that supports enough T2 units to counter the maneuverability of T1. I think it'd be beneficial if either:
1) Moho Mines were slightly cheapened and their energy usage halved
or
2) T2 had 1 or 2 units that were a little faster and slightly cheaper than the current fastest and cheapest available T2 units.

[Floris]

making t2 units stronger only makes teamgames worse. now it is so that one fatty or golly with proper guidance can rape its way through to bases.

if you want the things you want you have to fork and mod-limit to 3v3 max.

less t2, but healthier means easier to repair and returning safely (besides losing some firingpower)

imo ba requires too much eco-ing. and thats also why you dont see t2 in 1v1. you cant produce t2 efficient enough without fusion power. If this changes and eco is more difficult but t2 is cheaper in e then it could be getting somewhere, for both big and small games

[Johannes]

The way to go is to balance so that any game size is good and strategically varied, duh.

T1 -> T2 transition is kinda tacky in almost any game/map size though. It's a too big one-time investment, so it either halts the game down a lot or just ends it when the non-tech side goes all-out attack and either loses or wins there.



What I'd do is just cut the lab cost by some amount, and make the other t2 things slightly worse.



And the biggest gripe with BA though, is a teamgame exclusive. In a big game it doesn't really make any sense to build as many labs as you have players, it's a waste of metal. And lab-sharing, especially with strangers, is usually just not that fun as having units is, so we are now seeing people having to play unoptimally in order to enjoy the game.

[Johannes]

imo ba requires too much eco-ing. and thats also why you dont see t2 in 1v1. you cant produce t2 efficient enough without fusion power. If this changes and eco is more difficult but t2 is cheaper in e then it could be getting somewhere, for both big and small games

In a map like CCR, producing tons of shit with just (adv) solar is not a problem.

[Forboding Angel]

Jaz, you shouldn't be using sc2 as a good basis for balance. Sc2 balance is awful, mainly because of unit synergy (or lack thereof).

A large part of sc2's problem is that the interface is awful. For example, if units had special abilities in spring, and you selected multiple units with special abilities, all those hotkeys would be usable with the blob selected.

Instead, in sc2, if you have blink stalkers, sentries, and high templar all in the same grouping, you must tab through each type in order to use it's abilities. That's pretty hardcore fail.

But back to balance... Sc2 is very badly balanced, but that is the way it is designed, so it works for sc2. BA is a completely different animal.

The entire protoss tech tree is 28 units. Zerg slightly less, and terran slightly more. Less than 100 units total for 3 races.

If I remember correctly, BA has 350+ units for only 2 factions.

Upshot is, don't bother comparing BA balance and sc2 balance as that is the equivalent of comparing apples to watermelons.

[Jazcash]

[rant]

Jaz, you shouldn't be using sc2 as a good basis for balance. Sc2 balance is awful, mainly because of unit synergy (or lack thereof).

A large part of sc2's problem is that the interface is awful. For example, if units had special abilities in spring, and you selected multiple units with special abilities, all those hotkeys would be usable with the blob selected.

Sc2 is very badly balanced, but that is the way it is designed, so it works for sc2. BA is a completely different animal.

If I remember correctly, BA has 350+ units for only 2 factions.

Upshot is, don't bother comparing BA balance and sc2 balance as that is the equivalent of comparing apples to watermelons.

SC2's balance isn't perfect, but it's certainly not awful. You're right in that I shouldn't be comparing SC2 balance to BA balance because they're two very different things. Talking about the balance differences between Arm and Core is like talking about the differences between an Orange and a Clementine, to further your fruit analogy. Whereas talking about balance in StarCraft two actually means what it should mean, how factions scale up against each other and how different strategies counter others without being overpowered.

Instead, in sc2, if you have blink stalkers, sentries, and high templar all in the same grouping, you must tab through each type in order to use it's abilities. That's pretty hardcore fail.

Here you're just clutching at straws. This has nothing at all to do with balance.

The entire protoss tech tree is 28 units. Zerg slightly less, and terran slightly more. Less than 100 units total for 3 races.

Yet so much more diversity and strategic options available. BA is more about spamming one type of unit rather than making a solid mix where every unit plays a large role. Of course, it's possible, and sometimes it works quite well, but usually it's possible to beat it by just spamming one type of unit. The huge amount of units BA has is useless talking about when half of them are very optional and whichever unit you choose to make rarely makes a big difference, in the end, it usually just comes down to who can spam the most units. I've won 1v1 games using 100% slashers, 100% levelers, 100% raiders, 100% gators and even 100% weasels a few times. Artillery in 1v1 are useless and mine-layers are rarely useful unless there's a choke point your enemy has to pass through.

I used to have the same opinion as you, even after I played a bit of SC2. I used to laugh at how many units BA had in comparison, and other silly arguments such as how many units are possible on the map at one time or how 16+ player games are possible. It's only after you really get into StarCraft and amongst the competitive community that you realise how much better it is than BA in terms of skill, and how much precision goes into the balance and strategic builds that people come up with.

BA's been balanced in a rather circular way, for example: somebody sees Unit A pwning in a game ripping apart everything that it comes into contact with with ease. Unit A is nerfed in some fashion. A bit longer down the line, Unit B is seen eating up Unit A despite Unit B being a lot cheaper to build. So Unit A is buffed back up to what it was. The process continues. One problem I see, is that there are so many different ways to buff or nerf a unit, so many different properties. With all the different developers BA has had, it's hard to stay consistent in how these buffs and nerfs are committed so some devs may buff a unit's health, others may instead increase it's turn rate or speed etc. Unless the balance issues are looked at very precisely, it's hard to tell exactly which exact property of the unit it is that needs changing. With 350+ units that process is even harder.

[/rant]

[Forboding Angel]

Instead, in sc2, if you have blink stalkers, sentries, and high templar all in the same grouping, you must tab through each type in order to use it's abilities. That's pretty hardcore fail.

Here you're just clutching at straws. This has nothing at all to do with balance.

It has everything to do with balance. You may be happily oblivious to the fact, but a game's UI can greatly affect balance.

Imagine if you were able to use all 3 abilities at once without the tabbing. Protoss would immediately become 300% more powerful. Same could be said for other combinations.

Imagine simultaneously putting up forcefields and blinking stalkers while blanketing storms.

You may not be fast enough to manage that, but I am and at least 50% of the sc2 playbase is easily capable of it.

UI has a massive impact on balance.

BA's biggest balance woes are the fact that it's balance is not built on consistent ground. It is as though unit stats were decided with 20 sided dice rolls. We all know that isn't the case, but BA has passed through so many hands, that it's "Balance" is just a quagmire of number edits.

You also seem to not understand the fact that Sc2's "Balance" is achieved through imbalance. Sc2 balance is horrid, but it works due to the dynamics of the 3 races.

Anyway, my main point was that comparing BA balance to Sc2 was a load. You should not have even brought it up because it is in no way applicable.

[knorke]

Didnt you both just say that comparing sc2 and ba is useless? And then you did it.

You may not be fast enough to manage that, but I am

[Jazcash]

Instead, in sc2, if you have blink stalkers, sentries, and high templar all in the same grouping, you must tab through each type in order to use it's abilities. That's pretty hardcore fail.

Here you're just clutching at straws. This has nothing at all to do with balance.

It has everything to do with balance. You may be happily oblivious to the fact, but a game's UI can greatly affect balance.

Imagine if you were able to use all 3 abilities at once without the tabbing. Protoss would immediately become 300% more powerful. Same could be said for other combinations.

Imagine simultaneously putting up forcefields and blinking stalkers while blanketing storms.

What do you mean "imagine"? All you have to do is hotkey your spellcasters and all it takes is a few extra clicks than it would if you could use all abilities at once. Besides, it's not like a "UI buff" like that wouldn't help the other races. Terran's could Stim, Siege, Cloak, EMP, Snipe, Nuke etc all at the same time and Zerg's could Fungal, Burrow, Splode Banelings at the same time. More spellcasters for Zerg in HoTS too so it wouldn't be bad for any race really.
300% more powerful? Maybe if you're terrible at hitting group hotkeys, sure.

BA's biggest balance woes are the fact that it's balance is not built on consistent ground. It is as though unit stats were decided with 20 sided dice rolls. We all know that isn't the case, but BA has passed through so many hands, that it's "Balance" is just a quagmire of number edits.

That was pretty much the point I was trying to make. And as I said, directly comparing "balance" between SC2 and BA isn't the same thing so stop making out that SC2's balance is bad when you're looking at it with a BA flashlight. I'm done.

[Johannes]

UI affects balance, sure. How you make the leap from that to claiming UI inconveniences ruin balance I don't know.