In the end, though, it seems balence is mostly a guessing game, thanks to that damn humain factor. Or factor X as I call it. Each unit is a tool that can do different things. The problem that humain players bring to the table is they use those tools in weird ways. Like in Dune, I often used advanced carryalls. Not to pick up my units. To pick up the ENEMY UNITS! Buhahahahaha.
There was the old TA Atlas/com bombing raid trick and probebly a hundred more I never heard off. Humains are a collection of sneaky, tanacious, hard to kill bastards. So you can always balence the tools the humains have...but you can never balence the humains themselves...or at least not yet.
Question for Caydr and other stuff
Moderator: Moderators
Hes right you know, give it up fang, no offense but your so wrong its not even funny. El cap know what hes talking about, listen to him, it might even help you with your mod.El Capitano wrote:It's like banging my head against a wall. You can make all the "subjective" balance decisions you want, but in the end, if ARM end up winning significantly more than CORE, if Mavs get massed every game, if everybody is always looking to counter the same strategy, then the game is not balanced! It's measurable, it's demonstratable, it's provable, therefore it's objective!Fanger wrote:You can only measure balance objectively according to how you believe it should be balanced, your objective measurement is compared to what you believe should be the balance, which is an opinion..No, it's not. Read up on the reflective property sometime.and GAMEPLAY is balance,A game can be perfectly balanced, yet have poor gameplay. Poor balance is going to negatively reflect a multiplayer game.if the game is not balanced in a manner you find suitable, you wont like the gameplay, that does not mean the game is not balanced, that means its not balanced for you, again OPINION..It's easy. People demonstrated that the defiler was imbalanced by pointing out that the most effective counter against it still cost more than the cost of defilers it destroyed. There was no way to stop the defiler for cost.Balance is subjective, you have yet to prove me wrong by stating one way it is objective.. How can you distinctly measure a quanity that is based on an opinion or preference..
In a grander scale, if you want to measure whether the sides are balanced, look at win percentages. IIRC, in Starcraft, the three sides all have win ratios that are within 0.1% of each other. It's something like 49.9% Protos, 50.1% Zerg. I'd say that's strong evidence that those match-ups are balanced.
There is no formula to say "take these units and make them balanced", but you make your decisions and you can then test them objectively to tell if they're valid decisions. Hell, even going "I won't do this because it goes against the gameplay decisions I made for these sides" is not subjective. It may well be that you can't achieve true balance with the units you have and the gameplay requirements you have put in place, and that means you must either remove/add units or change your gameplay decisions.
Gameplay requirements are subjective, balance is not.
-
Deathblane
- Posts: 505
- Joined: 01 Feb 2006, 01:22
It may considered Off-Topic - but Sid once described his balancing Method that way - "Take the Unit in Question, double the Var in Question - Test it - take the same Var, half it - test it. Result is a feel how the Var should look. This process is far from beeing perfect, but it is a slowly - step by step - closing in to the target."
I would continue this "discussion" but its clear to me that el capo is only responding to my statements and not actually reading them, given that hes decided im wrong before he even reads the statement any attempts to reason are pointless as we will get no where..
and rinkydinky, that is so blantantly a flamebait its not even funny, good try man good try, why dont you and el capo come back after you have ACTUALLY made a mod and then start acting like you know something..
and rinkydinky, that is so blantantly a flamebait its not even funny, good try man good try, why dont you and el capo come back after you have ACTUALLY made a mod and then start acting like you know something..
-
Guessmyname
- Posts: 3301
- Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 21:07
-
BlackLiger
- Posts: 1371
- Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 21:58
-
Guessmyname
- Posts: 3301
- Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 21:07
Having read through all of the trivial flamebait and occasional productive posts in this topic, one thing comes to mind.
The mod can be balanced, the individual games can NOT.
It seems to me that a lot of the controversy over balance in mods such as AA is purely based from individual games.
Take mavericks for example, by many claimed to be overpowered and laying waste to enemy units. This happens for several reasons, which for the main part i feel are down to the way the game plays out.
To put it in context, someone hits you with 5 mavs at 15 mins, they tromp through your base and destroy most things in their path, perhaps finally die to an exploding enemy commander.
Several reasons why the 5 mavs came at 15 mins and walked straight through enemy base/defence, heres just a few:
Didnt put enough pressure on opponent, thus letting him over expand, use far more resources building his tech 2 lab than he would otherwise have to spend, had the opposing player consistently attacked forcing him to rebuild and/or make more level 1 units to counter these moves.
Didnt raid effectively or efficiently, letting the enemy get such an advantage that he can build a tech 2 lab quickly whilst holding off any raids that do come through.
Has limited or no knowledge of how to make most of economy, how to progress economy, how to take as much metal from a given situation as possible (e.g. map is covered in rocks, but player doesnt reclaim any on his side, while enemy reclaims constantly)
I'll stop there with reasons before it becomes a truly mammoth post, because if i were to lay down as many reasons as i can think of it would probably cover several pages. Its all dependent on the scenario of the particular game, theres hundreds of different reasons, thats what makes TA so fun to play, its not as limited as other RTS, theres plenty of variables.
The simple point i'm trying to make is that you cant say mavs are super units simply because you as a player dont know how to deal with them and cant play AA well enough to stop your opponent gaining a massive advantage over you.
Mavs are counterable, perhaps not cost for cost if you consider tech 1 units against tech 2 mavs, simply put because tech 2 is SUPPOSED to give an advantage cost for cost over tech 1 enemy units, else what the hell is the point in teching up?
Flash tanks or instigators will destroy mavericks pretty damn fast if used correctly, so will level 1 fighters, so will mines, so will tech 1 defence in a good setup, there are plenty of viable combinations. Ill agree mavericks can be extremely frustrating if the enemy micros them effectively, especially considered their combat regen, but all of this DOES NOT RELATE directly to the balance of the mod.
Basically, stop the enemy getting mavericks before you even have tech 2, or stop him getting mavericks before you have enough units or defence to counter them when they do come, or stop him getting mavericks until you have some yourself, or some bulldogs or reapers, lightning tanks or brawlers, rapiers or popups. If you CANT do that, simply put he has been the better player in the game, he's gained an advantage which is expressed in 5 mavericks after 15 minutes when you have nothing to counter them.
The mod IS balanced because there are plenty of viable counter moves to stop mavericks dominating an entire enemy, so long as THE PLAYERS IN THE GAME HAVE A BALANCED GAME. In every game, there is a level of unbalance, either forced or by nature - in the forced case because the opponent has played a "better" more effective game.
Mavericks just happen to be the common unit choice if someone goes tech 2 kbots, thats because mavericks are considered the most effective, best cost-for-cost tech 2 kbot for general circumstances, it doesnt mean the mod is unbalanced just because most people make mavericks. Each lab has a couple of particularly useful units, and others which are moderate to rarely used.
It has infact turned into a mammoth post after all
But thats because there is so much depth and reasoning around a simple statement like "mavs are unbalanced" that have to be considered. Much of it relates to gameplay and strategy, as opposed to peoples EXCUSES for losing games consistently to mavericks (I feel the real reason is because those players dont know how or arn't good enough to deal with them)
And thats just 1 unit. If anything this post just outlines how difficult it is to define balance, to meet everyones personal opinions, it shows that Caydr (and other mod developers) will have a difficult task balancing their mods.
At best they can balance their MOD to an extent where games are not dominated by a single unit, where there are several counters to each unit.
They CAN NOT balance individual games, individual player battles, tactics or strategy. The fundamental thing i'm trying to say in this post (which has far exceeded in length from what i intended) is:
DONT CONFUSE MOD BALANCE FOR THE SHIFTING BALANCE OF PARTICULAR GAMES.
The mod can be balanced, the individual games can NOT.
It seems to me that a lot of the controversy over balance in mods such as AA is purely based from individual games.
Take mavericks for example, by many claimed to be overpowered and laying waste to enemy units. This happens for several reasons, which for the main part i feel are down to the way the game plays out.
To put it in context, someone hits you with 5 mavs at 15 mins, they tromp through your base and destroy most things in their path, perhaps finally die to an exploding enemy commander.
Several reasons why the 5 mavs came at 15 mins and walked straight through enemy base/defence, heres just a few:
Didnt put enough pressure on opponent, thus letting him over expand, use far more resources building his tech 2 lab than he would otherwise have to spend, had the opposing player consistently attacked forcing him to rebuild and/or make more level 1 units to counter these moves.
Didnt raid effectively or efficiently, letting the enemy get such an advantage that he can build a tech 2 lab quickly whilst holding off any raids that do come through.
Has limited or no knowledge of how to make most of economy, how to progress economy, how to take as much metal from a given situation as possible (e.g. map is covered in rocks, but player doesnt reclaim any on his side, while enemy reclaims constantly)
I'll stop there with reasons before it becomes a truly mammoth post, because if i were to lay down as many reasons as i can think of it would probably cover several pages. Its all dependent on the scenario of the particular game, theres hundreds of different reasons, thats what makes TA so fun to play, its not as limited as other RTS, theres plenty of variables.
The simple point i'm trying to make is that you cant say mavs are super units simply because you as a player dont know how to deal with them and cant play AA well enough to stop your opponent gaining a massive advantage over you.
Mavs are counterable, perhaps not cost for cost if you consider tech 1 units against tech 2 mavs, simply put because tech 2 is SUPPOSED to give an advantage cost for cost over tech 1 enemy units, else what the hell is the point in teching up?
Flash tanks or instigators will destroy mavericks pretty damn fast if used correctly, so will level 1 fighters, so will mines, so will tech 1 defence in a good setup, there are plenty of viable combinations. Ill agree mavericks can be extremely frustrating if the enemy micros them effectively, especially considered their combat regen, but all of this DOES NOT RELATE directly to the balance of the mod.
Basically, stop the enemy getting mavericks before you even have tech 2, or stop him getting mavericks before you have enough units or defence to counter them when they do come, or stop him getting mavericks until you have some yourself, or some bulldogs or reapers, lightning tanks or brawlers, rapiers or popups. If you CANT do that, simply put he has been the better player in the game, he's gained an advantage which is expressed in 5 mavericks after 15 minutes when you have nothing to counter them.
The mod IS balanced because there are plenty of viable counter moves to stop mavericks dominating an entire enemy, so long as THE PLAYERS IN THE GAME HAVE A BALANCED GAME. In every game, there is a level of unbalance, either forced or by nature - in the forced case because the opponent has played a "better" more effective game.
Mavericks just happen to be the common unit choice if someone goes tech 2 kbots, thats because mavericks are considered the most effective, best cost-for-cost tech 2 kbot for general circumstances, it doesnt mean the mod is unbalanced just because most people make mavericks. Each lab has a couple of particularly useful units, and others which are moderate to rarely used.
It has infact turned into a mammoth post after all
But thats because there is so much depth and reasoning around a simple statement like "mavs are unbalanced" that have to be considered. Much of it relates to gameplay and strategy, as opposed to peoples EXCUSES for losing games consistently to mavericks (I feel the real reason is because those players dont know how or arn't good enough to deal with them)
And thats just 1 unit. If anything this post just outlines how difficult it is to define balance, to meet everyones personal opinions, it shows that Caydr (and other mod developers) will have a difficult task balancing their mods.
At best they can balance their MOD to an extent where games are not dominated by a single unit, where there are several counters to each unit.
They CAN NOT balance individual games, individual player battles, tactics or strategy. The fundamental thing i'm trying to say in this post (which has far exceeded in length from what i intended) is:
DONT CONFUSE MOD BALANCE FOR THE SHIFTING BALANCE OF PARTICULAR GAMES.
I am of the rational and scientifically grounded opinion that balance is never reached, and we merely attempt to approximate it. However, in general, I feel that most mods have been getting closer to this ideal - and often it is the case that those who complain about a lack of balance lack some knowledge or experience that others possess... however, it is up to debate whether this is a balance issue in itself.
Regardless, a discussion of balance is not the intent of this thread.
Regardless, a discussion of balance is not the intent of this thread.
-
El Capitano
- Posts: 156
- Joined: 13 Oct 2006, 10:48
Please stop insulting me. I've replied to your posts with reasoned points and evidence/examples to back them up, you're just making statement after statement without providing any actual evidence of your assertions.Fanger wrote:I would continue this "discussion" but its clear to me that el capo is only responding to my statements and not actually reading them, given that hes decided im wrong before he even reads the statement any attempts to reason are pointless as we will get no where..