Balanced Annihilation V7.04

[Wombat]

make second release just for 1v1 with lower t2 lab cost, everyone win (omg i say this like 2723420909th time)

[Gota]

I agree that without making big changes BA will not be able to allow nice t1-t2 play in competitive games.
I also agree that not making these changes means less fun in competitive games.
There is another issue IMO.
Competitive games in BA have a certain average length.
In that time frame a modder must decide what is the arsenal that needs to become available during the game and what will be the chances for every unit/weapon to become more or as efficient(based on an assortment of maps) as other weapons/units.

If you take the current average BA competitive game and do not change its average length and make t2 labs cheaper this means that those t2 labs,that will now be more efficient,will come instead of some other weapon/s/unit/units/gameplay at the times in games when these cheaper labs will now be buildable.

Now there are 2 ways to deal with it IMO.
#1 try and increase the average gametime to allow more things to be used without giving less use time to the things that are now more efficient than t2 labs.
#2 do not try and increase the average playing time and decide that those cases in which the T2 labs will(after they become cheaper) be made more efficient do not ATM(without cheaper T2 labs) contribute to a more fun gameplay.
That those gameplay elements/units/weapons,that will be moved aside and given less play time,are less important/fun than adding play time of t2 units/t2 arsenal.
If the average gametime does not increase than after You make T2 labs cheaper some games will end with someone making a t2 lab, playing with some t2 units and winning,instead of say,amassing a crazy amount of t1 units and winning that way.

So either make games longer or decide T2 is more important and other things need to get a bit less exposure and game time.

Making games longer on average can mean that players need to be able to defend a bit easier so that games can be prolonged and will not always end with say,flash spam,but will rather get prolonged and the game will get decided by the T2 arsenal and economy..

ATM,Competitive BA games are either not porcy enough,which means you will probably never need t2 units(even if labs become cheaper and if T2 units are not buffed) and can just end the game with some raiding and t1 attacks.

Another possibility is that the game is not streamlined enough and because players are still not sure how exactly to play on each map games do not become as porcy as they might become if players,with time,figure out in a more precise manner how to play on maps and in certain circumstances thus making less random mistakes and allowing the game to prolong.

You can make BA last longer by increasing Turret efficiency(or decreasing unit efficiency) or by slowing down the average gamespeed(with all that this implies) so that players have more microtime/scout time and are less susceptible to mistakes they make cause they have more time to react to changes and have lower chances of being surprised.

An example:
If llt and hlt are suddenly made twice as efficient for their cost(im not saying this should actually be done) we will see much more air and t2(even without decreasing the t2 lab costs) used because it will be much harder to end the game with t1 units.

[hoijui]

WE NEED a dynamic costs model!
there are different levels/ways the dynmicness could be incorporated.
1. (simple) instead of a fixed cost, as it is now, untis have a standard cost plus a standard-error, and the cost for each unit would be generated at the start of a game with these two values.
2. (less simple) the costs of units are dynamically changed during the game, depending on some factors (eg, cost goes up/down when you have many of one unit already, or if your total unit count is high/low, if the unit has not been built often during this game, ... don't know what would make sense).
3. (complex) basically same as 2., but the simulated economy model would span over all games (would need a central economy server). this woudl allow for many ugly tricks and cheats, just as in real live economy, if you have the power.
imagine running a few dedicated servers wiht bots at 120x speed, and the bots are configured to manipulate the economy so that a seldomly used unit gets very cheap, and you are hte only one that knows this is gonna happen, at the start of the game, and can adjust your build strategy to enmass this unit.
we would also need a central economy commitee, that tries to prevent such things, and tries to ensure that eco stats submitting games are real games... this comite would have a big power of course, ....
would add an other layer to spring ...
we could be a host for eco simulation events, and invite eco students to do projects on spring...
as said: WE NEED THIS! someone do! you are welcome! (as i did the hard part of having the idea already)

[1v0ry_k1ng]

improve the game

Improvement is incredibly relative, some would find it an improvement to have atlas not be able to transport commanders, some wouldn't.

As such it doesn't require any counter-argument, merely a statement of disagreement (or agreement).

So I respond: -1

hmph well, in this case it is a specific improvement being suggested: greater potential for unit variety in 1v1s by making t2 labs a viable alternative to additional t1 labs in said game. Which means wether it would be seen as an improvement is relative to wether players enjoy a smaller or larger number of viable lab and unit choices.

but who gives

[ginekolog]

T1 and T2 Balance is awsome in teamgames or FFA games atm, but i agree that even in 1v1 there should be rewarding option to tech at some point.

Its very hard to say what to do.. i have no good idea tbh. MAybe a bit more AOE to t2 units and a bit cheaper t2 labs? HArd to guess.

[Gota]

T1 and T2 Balance is awsome in teamgames or FFA games atm, but i agree that even in 1v1 there should be rewarding option to tech at some point.

Its very hard to say what to do.. i have no good idea tbh. MAybe a bit more AOE to t2 units and a bit cheaper t2 labs? HArd to guess.

Needs a lot of testing.
But first people must agree to try and allow t2 in competitive games..

[JohannesH]

Problem with t2 is that you not only need the 2,5k+ metal to build the lab, but also more nanos and energy compared to spamming stumpy, thud or such. But for metal cost t2 units are not bad, thats not the problem, its just too big downtime in unit production for it. On bot maps t2 is a bit more viable since armies are slower. Also leveler spam can make t2 an option but thats not viable on too many maps...

But 1 thing that Llama (iirc it was him) suggested sometime, was to add more buildpower to t2 labs. Now that Ive thought of this I think it should be a pretty good idea - itd be significant when you want to use it for unit production and you need to make few less nanos to support it which saves alot of time. But it wouldnt be almost any help when you just want to tech rush and reclaim the lab after the t2con or consul/freaker. Also it would give some freedom in positioning, you could keep your t1 labs as they are with optimal nano turning, and make the t2 lab in a different spot.


But sometimes there is the time available to stop unit production for a minute and go t2. But when you can rush liche or hurricanes, why make a ground t2 lab? Usually that gets the comm and wins the game straight, if hes jammed/cloaked you can still usually kill his production. Some games hes porced up well with aa, but t1 fighters dont help that much against liche since you need just few fighters of your own to distract and then the liche outruns his fighters. Actually I think t2 airlab should be a bit MORE expensive...



About doing too drastic changes... Just remember that small change in lab costs is NOTHING compared to jeffy/wezel nerf when you compare the effects on gameplay.


Also fixing stuff like t2 ground aa being much worse than t1 could make it more viable. Though that alone wont make anyone go t2 ofc.

[TradeMark]

hey i made new widget, can we include it to new BA? would be useful for noobs IMO:

http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=21244

[Pxtl]

I've never really noticed low nanopower in T2 being a problem. Usually by the time I hit T2, I have a good army of T1 workers that I can task to supporting the T2 fac.

The reason T2 has so much dead-time, imho, is simply the cost of the fac and the dead-time you spend on upgrading all your resource stuff. Those mohos aren't cheap.

They're also why it's tricky to get T2 earlier in-game - T2 unlocks some seriously heavy hardware, both economically and militaristically. Once you get T2 defenses, building an HLT or a Guardian is a waste of resources. While the actual mobile T2 units are generally porcbreakers that you won't need until much later, the T2 econ and defenses make a very big impact.

[Gota]

Johan.
IMO t2 units are not good enough to build in most situations if t2 labs were cheaper.
I think it would still be better to spam t1 stumpies than make bulldogs.
Unless The game has become very porcy with tons of def i dont think most t2 units are worthwhile for their cost.
of course all this needs to be tested to really know.

Pxtl building a guardian is a waste of time without T2 units available.
The t2 eco and defenses are the strong side of t2 ATM IMO,as in,if T2 labs were made cheaper I'd try and spam t2 eco and defenses before going for t2 units.

[JohannesH]

Stumpies mixed with bulldogs win against pure stumpies, even in open ground.

And if you want to start with defenses and econ it means much bigger downtime until you get some benefit from the t2. Also pitbull isnt really better vs stumpies than beamers of same cost.

[1v0ry_k1ng]

2.5k is a biiig investment compared to t1. thats one of each t1 lab and some metal left over for stumpies for the price of a t2 factory. at current pricing would not be legit in most 1v1s even if t2 was grossly op, because wasting 2.5k of metal making a lab puts you well behind on maknig stumpy

[Gota]

Stumpies mixed with bulldogs win against pure stumpies, even in open ground.

And if you want to start with defenses and econ it means much bigger downtime until you get some benefit from the t2. Also pitbull isnt really better vs stumpies than beamers of same cost.

Your not taking into account the fact that bulldogs are slower and less maneuverable.
And actually I'm not all that sure bulldogs mixed with stoompeh vs stompeh for same cost are more effective on open grounds.
I dont think bulldogs are effective enough to counter both the time and res spent on t2 lab and the fact that it takes a long time to build a bulldog and move him to the front(also you can build several stumpy before one bulldog is rdy which means that while he is still building the stumpies are already influancing the game)

[JohannesH]

Stumpies mixed with bulldogs win against pure stumpies, even in open ground.

And if you want to start with defenses and econ it means much bigger downtime until you get some benefit from the t2. Also pitbull isnt really better vs stumpies than beamers of same cost.

Your not taking into account the fact that bulldogs are slower and less maneuverable.
And actually I'm not all that sure bulldogs mixed with stoompeh vs stompeh for same cost are more effective on open grounds.

But I am pretty sure. I know they are slower but I didnt feel like going through all its stats or situations where its useful, just wanted to say its a useful unit (but not in every situation obviously).

I dont think bulldogs are effective enough to counter both the time and res spent on t2 lab and the fact that it takes a long time to build a bulldog and move him to the front(also you can build several stumpy before one bulldog is rdy which means that while he is still building the stumpies are already influancing the game)

Well i never said bulldogs are worth the lab cost alone. Theres all this other stuff too you can build from the lab too. But in a tight game the units would be the first thing I make, since they come into effect earlier than setting defenses and mexes. They buy time to get that stuff up.

It wouldnt be a completely trivial thing to get a handful "free nanos" with the t2 lab, nanos do take quite some time to build.

[Gota]

This is just all crazy speculation,from all sides.
None of the T2 units or mechanincs were stress tested anywhere close to T1 units IMO.
Needs testing.

[Niobium]

WE NEED a dynamic costs model!
there are different levels/ways the dynmicness could be incorporated.
1. (simple) instead of a fixed cost, as it is now, untis have a standard cost plus a standard-error, and the cost for each unit would be generated at the start of a game with these two values.
2. (less simple) the costs of units are dynamically changed during the game, depending on some factors (eg, cost goes up/down when you have many of one unit already, or if your total unit count is high/low, if the unit has not been built often during this game, ... don't know what would make sense).
3. (complex) basically same as 2., but the simulated economy model would span over all games (would need a central economy server). this woudl allow for many ugly tricks and cheats, just as in real live economy, if you have the power

4. (Easy) A gadget which works in the same way the nocost widget works, however it allows ingame changing of specific unit costs by the host.

i.e. /setcost armstump metal 250

Very easy to write. Very easy to be able to save sets of changes and reload them. And puts an end to all the bitching from people who want tiny changes to a few select units, especially because it's mostly 1v1 players, who are able to host easily. Added benefit of working in every version of every mod now and in the future.

Think stumpies are OP? Increase the metal cost to what you feel is appropriate.
Want to see more T2? Halve the lab costs.

Add some decent functionality like adjusting by percentages, or specific amounts, adjusting whole groups, etc, and it's done.

This is all just using a gadget calling Spring.SetUnitCosts(unitID, {metal=?, energy=?, buildtime=?}) for certain units. There's probably a lot more that can be done via gadgets, like altering unit speeds and other parameters. But changing costs is the easiest to write and provides all that's needed to balance any unit.

[hoijui]

mmm i like this idea !
on top of this, hosts coudl have their own widgets, doing stuff like you said, with saving/loading presets (through a simple GUI maybe), or dynamic resource systems as i described them. testing balance ideas would be very easy, ...

[Niobium]

mmm i like this idea !
on top of this, hosts coudl have their own widgets, doing stuff like you said, with saving/loading presets (through a simple GUI maybe), or dynamic resource systems as i described them. testing balance ideas would be very easy, ...

To be honest that is the better way to go. Have the gadget provide the bare minimum, a /setcost <unit> <resource> <cost> command. Users will be able to use this command directly for small changes, and people interested in more complex setups can code their own widgets which cleverly call Spring.SendCommands() to set up exactly what they are after. Also simplifying the gadget means less work for mod devs and hence more likely to get implemented.

[TheFatController]

If someone implements that gadget i'd be happy to add it as a mod option.

[Beherith]

Nio's idea is golden! A way to easily test balance would be great like this :)