balance - Page 2

balance

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

tzaeru
Posts: 283
Joined: 28 Oct 2007, 02:23

Re: balance

Post by tzaeru »

Broker wrote: Maverick move to the core in T1. do a little weaker.
I don't see a point in this?
Broker wrote: sniper removed from the game.
I doubt this is necessary. Slight debuff at most.

After snipers were fixed to hit basically every time a bit back, I initally thought that this would be relatively easy to counter with spam. However, it's not. Snipers as it is, are indeed extremely powerful, and I find it very hard to do anything about them when they're aided by T1 and Zeus, jammer & radar kbots. I'm unsure if it'd warrant making them a little weaker. Need to test around more.. :-)
Broker wrote:the game has no hidden operations behind enemy.
What do you mean with this? BA and TA always were about scouting and espionage being equally important as your unit count. :P
Broker wrote: Fido change as Morty or Dominator. or Morty move the hand and make like a dominator.
Again I don't see the point. Fido isn't that much weaker than Morty after Morty was made slower. Morty is artillery, Fido is close to, and that's just fine.
Broker wrote: kbot and Vehicle should be approximately equal. The player can choose what they like. Lightning tank "Panther" removed. the core has no analogue that can fight him as an equal.
Kbot and vehicles shouldn't be equal. Playing a game where all factions and units are played exactly same, isn't much fun. Also, you can not make kbots and vehicles equal without major overhauling, since the very design of maps themself strives for the balance of flat ground vs. hilly ground.

The mere fact alone that kbots can climb steeper hills makes them superior in some maps. This has to be balanced in some way, and that way is making them somewhat weaker in head on battles.

Also, Core's assault tanks, Reapers, are faster and more enduring than Bulldogs.

EDIT: To share my two cents about the opening post's concerns of balance.. Firstly, Warrior which is the T1 heavy kbot Arm has, is not cost-effective in vast majority of scenarios. So it doesn't imbalance anything.

For Zeus.. Can (core T2 kbot) is usually a lot better.

For Janus (the super-high damage doing Arm T1 vehicle), it is pretty counterable and expensive unit. Also, Core has Riot Rank, which can be even stronger vs. kbots and flashes/instigators than Janus is.

Personally I always thought that Core T2 actually has slight advantage over Arm T2.
Broker
Posts: 156
Joined: 02 Jul 2012, 13:16

Re: balance

Post by Broker »

tzaeru wrote:
Broker wrote: Maverick move to the core in T1. do a little weaker.
I don't see a point in this?
the point is. core difficult to deal with Warrior, who is stronger than Thud and shoots instantly. seems to me that the players build Maverick rare/I think Maverick has little hitpoints for kbot 2 levels.
Broker wrote: sniper removed from the game.
I doubt this is necessary. Slight debuff at most.

After snipers were fixed to hit basically every time a bit back, I initally thought that this would be relatively easy to counter with spam. However, it's not. Snipers as it is, are indeed extremely powerful, and I find it very hard to do anything about them when they're aided by T1 and Zeus, jammer & radar kbots. I'm unsure if it'd warrant making them a little weaker. Need to test around more.. :-)
Broker wrote:the game has no hidden operations behind enemy.
What do you mean with this? BA and TA always were about scouting and espionage being equally important as your unit count. :P
I just think that the sniper has the task to infiltrate behind enemy lines and make a one shot. a sniper in the game is a universal soldier sitting in the trenches and holds the front, fighting in the attack. core is difficult to fight against them. Penetrator like a sniper. the core has no such units in the list and kbot Vehitsles.

Broker wrote: Fido change as Morty or Dominator. or Morty move the hand and make like a dominator.
Again I don't see the point. Fido isn't that much weaker than Morty after Morty was made slower. Morty is artillery, Fido is close to, and that's just fine.
you can even say that Fido is more convenient than Mort. Fido moves fast, shoots far, and can be used in close combat.
Broker wrote: kbot and Vehicle should be approximately equal. The player can choose what they like. Lightning tank "Panther" removed. the core has no analogue that can fight him as an equal.
Kbot and vehicles shouldn't be equal. Playing a game where all factions and units are played exactly same, isn't much fun. Also, you can not make kbots and vehicles equal without major overhauling, since the very design of maps themself strives for the balance of flat ground vs. hilly ground.
players usually build kbot or Vehicle . not enough of metal on both factories.
The mere fact alone that kbots can climb steeper hills makes them superior in some maps. This has to be balanced in some way, and that way is making them somewhat weaker in head on battles.

Also, Core's assault tanks, Reapers, are faster and more enduring than Bulldogs.
Reapers do not shoot at moving targets like Panther. Panther cheaper

EDIT: To share my two cents about the opening post's concerns of balance.. Firstly, Warrior which is the T1 heavy kbot Arm has, is not cost-effective in vast majority of scenarios. So it doesn't imbalance anything.

For Zeus.. Can (core T2 kbot) is usually a lot better.

For Janus (the super-high damage doing Arm T1 vehicle), it is pretty counterable and expensive unit. Also, Core has Riot Rank, which can be even stronger vs. kbots and flashes/instigators than Janus is.
possible, but to fight it as hard as a sniper.

Personally I always thought that Core T2 actually has slight advantage over Arm T2.
You can add speed sumo. it can be used as a fat man against many of simple units. in its present form it almost impossible to use.
Broker
Posts: 156
Joined: 02 Jul 2012, 13:16

Re: balance

Post by Broker »

by the way is a good idea to make a server in which teams are divided by the parties. one team contains only the core, the other only the arm. so soon it will be possible to understand what's what.
dansan
Server Owner & Developer
Posts: 1203
Joined: 29 May 2010, 23:40

Re: balance

Post by dansan »

Broker wrote:by the way is a good idea to make a server in which teams are divided by the parties. one team contains only the core, the other only the arm. so soon it will be possible to understand what's what.
That sounds fun. Probably really good for newbies to learn to appreciate both sides :)
User avatar
Silentwings
Posts: 3720
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: balance

Post by Silentwings »

Personally I always thought that Core T2 actually has slight advantage over Arm T2
I think this opinion is generally shared amongst the strongest players right now. However, imoh, arm t3 rocks and arm t2 air can do quite a few things core t2 air can't.

But really I like your point:
Playing a game where all factions and units are played exactly same, isn't much fun.
Broker
Posts: 156
Joined: 02 Jul 2012, 13:16

Re: balance

Post by Broker »

Playing a game where all factions and units are played exactly same, isn't much fun.
[/quote]

of course. so. 80% of the players playing the arm. isn't much fun. ))
tzaeru
Posts: 283
Joined: 28 Oct 2007, 02:23

Re: balance

Post by tzaeru »

Broker wrote:
Playing a game where all factions and units are played exactly same, isn't much fun.
of course. so. 80% of the players playing the arm. isn't much fun. ))
I doubt this is much due to balance reasons. It's more that Arm is easier to play, requiring less micro.

For example, small groups of AK beat small groups of PeeWee cost-effectively. Small groups of Instigators beat small groups of Flash. But only when microed effectively - when a dozen or so units just collide at each other, Arm is the likely winner. And! Ff not counting AK, Arm has more units that are easy to just spam mindlessly. Core's Dominators, Banishers, etc, require more careful deployment to reach their full effectivity.

Additionally, Arm is the default choice. Even if there was such thing as perfect balance (the mere definition of such is an impossible task, though :wink:), the default choice would still get noticeably more players on it's side.
Broker wrote:
tzaeru wrote:
Broker wrote: Maverick move to the core in T1. do a little weaker.
I don't see a point in this?
the point is. core difficult to deal with Warrior, who is stronger than Thud and shoots instantly. seems to me that the players build Maverick rare/I think Maverick has little hitpoints for kbot 2 levels.
Like I said - Warrior is only very rarely a cost-effective unit, so it's a niche choice. It doesn't imbalance the battlefield since it's almost never used. Also Core's Storms and Thuds have more health than Arm's.
Broker wrote:
tzaeru wrote:
Broker wrote: Fido change as Morty or Dominator. or Morty move the hand and make like a dominator.
Again I don't see the point. Fido isn't that much weaker than Morty after Morty was made slower. Morty is artillery, Fido is close to, and that's just fine.
you can even say that Fido is more convenient than Mort. Fido moves fast, shoots far, and can be used in close combat.
It mostly can't, it's way too weak. And is still kiteable by Morty and many other units.

For the rest, my earlier points stand.
Broker
Posts: 156
Joined: 02 Jul 2012, 13:16

Re: balance

Post by Broker »

easy way to check to make a server in which teams are divided by the parties.
tzaeru
Posts: 283
Joined: 28 Oct 2007, 02:23

Re: balance

Post by tzaeru »

Broker wrote:easy way to check to make a server in which teams are divided by the parties.
It isn't an easy way to check.

Most players are more used to Arm than Core and some variables such as team sizes and map layout might have a surprisingly strong effect on the win/loss-ratio, as well as does sheer chance. Arm and Core play differently at different game stages too and I am relatively sure that if players were equally good with Arm and Core and had profound understanding of mechanics of different units and went on with their usual "camp in base til' T3"-tactic, Core would win.

Though, I still like the idea of having a server where one team is purely Core and one purely Arm! :-)
Broker
Posts: 156
Joined: 02 Jul 2012, 13:16

Re: balance

Post by Broker »

tzaeru wrote:
Broker wrote:easy way to check to make a server in which teams are divided by the parties.
It isn't an easy way to check.

Most players are more used to Arm than Core and some variables such as team sizes and map layout might have a surprisingly strong effect on the win/loss-ratio, as well as does sheer chance. Arm and Core play differently at different game stages too and I am relatively sure that if players were equally good with Arm and Core and had profound understanding of mechanics of different units and went on with their usual "camp in base til' T3"-tactic, Core would win.

Though, I still like the idea of having a server where one team is purely Core and one purely Arm! :-)
try it. you can answer the question of why Most players are more used to Arm than Core.
(It's more that Arm is easier to play, requiring less micro.
Core's Dominators, Banishers, etc, require more careful deployment to reach their full effectivity. )

You understand I do not insist. I think that from this game can be better and bring more fun to players.

thanks
User avatar
Silentwings
Posts: 3720
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: balance

Post by Silentwings »

This idea that a 'vast majority' of players use arm is just not true (afaik - if anyone is recording stats on this please chip in).

Also, to reiterate my point above - many of the current top players have argued that core currently has a (small) advantage, overall.
User avatar
Johannes
Posts: 1265
Joined: 17 Sep 2010, 15:49

Re: balance

Post by Johannes »

You can't really argue one way or another in general, only map-specifically. And even the common stance for the most played maps (fe. CCR) has changed over time, and not due to balance changes really but to just new ways of playing being discovered.

I think things are fine in the faction vs faction department, if anything you should be seeking, asking for, or making balanced maps to play on.
User avatar
SinbadEV
Posts: 6475
Joined: 02 May 2005, 03:56

Re: balance

Post by SinbadEV »

Johannes wrote:... if anything you should be seeking, asking for, or making balanced maps to play on.
Yeah +1

If "core always wins on big maps and arm always wins on small maps" then clearly the solution is to make more "medium sized" maps.
tzaeru
Posts: 283
Joined: 28 Oct 2007, 02:23

Re: balance

Post by tzaeru »

SinbadEV wrote:
Johannes wrote:... if anything you should be seeking, asking for, or making balanced maps to play on.
Yeah +1

If "core always wins on big maps and arm always wins on small maps" then clearly the solution is to make more "medium sized" maps.
I feel the Core advantage comes from being allowed to prepare to it's full extent for combat. This is, actually, independent of map size. It's a weird myth that big maps had slower gameplay and more porc because they are big. Actually it could as well be constant raiding all over, where Arm's speed advantage on PeeWee and Flash sure helps. :P

But yes. As above, map affects the balance as do some other factors.
Broker
Posts: 156
Joined: 02 Jul 2012, 13:16

Re: balance

Post by Broker »

may be combined factory transport and kbot. one factory could produce both types of units. I think it would be good.

very sorry that I was not able to convince you that something changed. You have a unique opportunity to change something without much coordination. not like. easy to bring back. For example, two servers one old and one new. Players will decide for themselves what they like.
User avatar
Silentwings
Posts: 3720
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: balance

Post by Silentwings »

if anything you should be making balanced maps to play on.
I'm doing it I'm doing it... :shock:

:mrgreen:
User avatar
1v0ry_k1ng
Posts: 4656
Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24

Re: balance

Post by 1v0ry_k1ng »

helpless laughter ensued after reading op
Broker
Posts: 156
Joined: 02 Jul 2012, 13:16

Re: balance

Post by Broker »

1v0ry_k1ng wrote:helpless laughter ensued after reading op
why. what do you think?
Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”