Spring RTS Engine

I just hate the mindset that something that requires care and attention to use is bad and enough reason to change balance.

Why shouldnt you have to micro arty? Should you not have to micro stumpies against gators, jeffies vs jeffies, janus vs levelers, rockos vs rockos, etc. etc. either? In all of those situations (including arty) you don't necessarily need to micro, to get some effect, but ofc for maximum effectivity you need good control. And to micro you need to divert your attention which is a strategic choice.

you misunderstood me. i actually LIKE having to micro. but! there is a very important difference between tedious micro and interesting micro. keeping arty out of hlt range is tedious. there are no choices to make. nothing to think about. you only have to do it. its pure, mechanical, click-where-you-obviously-have-to. ok, there IS the strategic choice of wether you micro your arty or use your attention elsewhere. but this doesnt justify this tedium.

You just have totally wrong mindset to talk about rts as far as I see... When you feel you shouldnt need to learn the most basic skills.

your mindset, in this discussion, seems to focus on proving that you rule, while others suck. not cool.

[quote="Hackfresser

You just have totally wrong mindset to talk about rts as far as I see... When you feel you shouldnt need to learn the most basic skills.

your mindset, in this discussion, seems to focus on proving that you rule, while others suck. not cool.[/quote]

dude, u rule! <3

Well i dont want to deraill this thread more.

But I Need to say this, i participated in testing PA, pro Ani.....

and now EA kicks in,

I have to say that EA changes some parts that were demanded by some players, witch i agree myself.

But you cant really change BA, you can only improve to a point, without having to recreate the game from a 0 point.

Stuff that i deam worthy would be
1-hearing to what has changed in the 1v1 scenario up to 8v8, what makes it fail and what makes it fun.

a Short list

1┬║ fast scout raid (it works but llts are to spamable imo in certain maps ofc, not the case in ccr)
2┬║ transition to flash/instigator (witch has been fucked up a bit tbh), the ability to use flash as somewhat close combat unit, and instigator as ranged unit, the diferences should be higher, theyr kinda mixed these days.
3┬║ Bombers were kinda the end game unit, more than t3 tbh, the changes to karganet and the rocked t3 kbot e.t.c. are necessary.
4┬║ I liked on PA that a 1v1 would evolve to a t2 situation more fast than before,
you would stumpy spam, then either go air, or fast t2.
Was a nice feature, and the fact t2 cons were more expensive.
5 pilagers with stumpy spam (<3).

5┬║ currently t2 units are kinda the middle units that either you spam them when you have the eco or just stand there as canon meat, they should provide a lot more strategic value to t1.5 situations.
Thats why delaying t2 cons would be nice on the t2 fac ofc, and reducing the metal cost of a t2 fac (not absurdely).

6┬║ Keep only these t1 defs.

llt-> raid (scouts and very small amounts of flash)
HLT -> medium raids ((AA spam) in small maps))
beamer -> hard raids (stumpy)
AA->generalised air

t1 Arty should have increased range to cope with hlt and def spamage.

And finaly i havent played BA seriously in a loong time, dont take my opinion as if i know everything, witch i dont seriously.

These are just gameplay ideas, that i would like to have more impact on the actual gameplay.

Anyways i dont know if this is heard or not, but i hope people keep an open mind about this.

cheers

How would you price the T2 cons to make that work? I mean, you can't *delay* the T2 cons without making them individually massively expensive. Because after all, you only really need 1 T2 con - the rest of your nanopower can come from T1 cons.

Example:Lets say a t1 fac costs around 800 m a t2 fac costs around 1.3k metal a t2 con costs around 800 metal.

And build time does the trick well, taking 3 mins to make it, would be at least doable

This is all speculation though.

Its dependant on map, the thing is when you go t2 you are like, heh im going to tech, not rush to penetrator or 1 or 2 buldogs.

Would be at least interesting to see.

i agree with scifi. going t2 units before getting the cons should be a viable option. right now going t2 usually means at least getting moho mines before anything else.

Hackfresser wrote:i agree with scifi. going t2 units before getting the cons should be a viable option. right now going t2 usually means at least getting moho mines before anything else.

not rly *points at Ray* <3

The reason t2 is made for eco is cause t2 units are not very efficient unless there is heavy porc which mostly happens in overcrowded games where even BA's sucky turrets can be useful.

t2 units dont suck... Panthers and crocs quite clearly outclass t1 units in almost all respects. Other t2 units are more specialised but very cost-effective still. I'd say that they are often too costeffective too, mainly just the brute-force units like panther, croc, bulldog (after EA change), goliath - I still don't like changes to them, when you can build those it really takes away reasons to build either t1 units or more subtle t2 units.

It's more to do with opportunity cost, if you can resources into t2 lab and not die, usually that means you can put that extra into some t2 econ as well, when army size is not as crucial for that moment it's better invest into a bigger army you get in 1-2 minutes.
But sometimes it is very sensible to skip on t2 cons (for some time atleast) and just spam units from it. When you've got so much income from wrecks, or otherwise are storing a huge amount of m, you can make a t2 lab (very m intensive structure) and it doesnt really eat into your army size to make the lab but you get those better units, so you get better army faster.

Oh and about arty, you should try it vs other things than HLTs too... AoE and range are nice vs smaller turrets too, and it really forces units to move.

if you can resources into t2 lab and not die, usually that means you can put that extra into some t2 econ as well, when army size is not as crucial for that moment

i think this is subject to false perception quite often. when i see poeple tech (not the dedicated techers but front players), its usually too early. sometimes they lose because they tech. often though, they either get away with it because their opponent porcs or techs as well, or they get away with it because they are far ahead alrdy. they spend metal and time on a lab where they could overrun the enemy with T1 both quicker and safer.
this gives poeple the impression that the side who gets to tech early wins the game. it is the other way around - the side who is winning gets to tech early becaues they CAN, not because they should.
against a porcing enemy, teching early is usually the right thing to do. (almost always better then going for T1 arty siege!)
against an early techer, teching yourself works, but going T1 spam is usually just better.

Hackfresser wrote:they spend metal and time on a lab where they could overrun the enemy with T1 both quicker and safer.

On standard BA8v8DSD this doesn't seem to be the case, as by the time you arrive on the enemies upward slope, one of them usually has some t2 units ready to just melt your t1 spam away. I've seen a lot of matches where this became a turning point and the seemingly winning team got pushed back.

That seems to have more to do with the slope on DSD. I've had good luck repelling armies of T2 tanks with a swarm of T1 tanks thanks to the rangeboost and mobility advantage the slope gives you. Assaulting the hill is hard no matter what.

Hackfresser wrote:

if you can resources into t2 lab and not die, usually that means you can put that extra into some t2 econ as well, when army size is not as crucial for that moment

i think this is subject to false perception quite often. when i see poeple tech (not the dedicated techers but front players), its usually too early. sometimes they lose because they tech. often though, they either get away with it because their opponent porcs or techs as well, or they get away with it because they are far ahead alrdy. they spend metal and time on a lab where they could overrun the enemy with T1 both quicker and safer.
this gives poeple the impression that the side who gets to tech early wins the game. it is the other way around - the side who is winning gets to tech early becaues they CAN, not because they should.
against a porcing enemy, teching early is usually the right thing to do. (almost always better then going for T1 arty siege!)
against an early techer, teching yourself works, but going T1 spam is usually just better.

[/quote]
Yes, most of the time t2 is not worth it, ofc most games by good players/teams never see t2. But that is not always the case, I think my post reflects pretty well the situations when teching is actually a good option. That many people might have wrong assumptions (especially big game players) isn't really relevant.

Johannes wrote:t2 units dont suck... Panthers and crocs quite clearly outclass t1 units in almost all respects. Other t2 units are more specialised but very cost-effective still. I'd say that they are often too costeffective too, mainly just the brute-force units like panther, croc, bulldog (after EA change), goliath - I still don't like changes to them, when you can build those it really takes away reasons to build either t1 units or more subtle t2 units.

It's more to do with opportunity cost, if you can resources into t2 lab and not die, usually that means you can put that extra into some t2 econ as well, when army size is not as crucial for that moment it's better invest into a bigger army you get in 1-2 minutes.
But sometimes it is very sensible to skip on t2 cons (for some time atleast) and just spam units from it. When you've got so much income from wrecks, or otherwise are storing a huge amount of m, you can make a t2 lab (very m intensive structure) and it doesnt really eat into your army size to make the lab but you get those better units, so you get better army faster.

Oh and about arty, you should try it vs other things than HLTs too... AoE and range are nice vs smaller turrets too, and it really forces units to move.

i ment t2 to use in 1v1 situation not an ffa when you can reclaim t2 fac to spam more t1.

Also i ment 6v6 situations,with massive t1 spams t2 should be used acordingly (i know theyr used but not that well).
I know t2 kbots 3 to 4 mortys are good ingame e.t.c. e.t.c...... but specialy in big games 6v6 and smaller games 1v1 t2 isnt the natural progretion to win a game if its staled.

In a 1v1 you wont go t2 its stupid, you only do so when you get massive expantion advantage (and if you have this) you just spam more t1.

i just ment i want them to be more used in the game.

I do not want tier 2 units being used to only break porcs in dsd, or to spam when you get the eco.

Also i didnt said they sucked, i just said when you finaly get the eco to spam them efectivly you could have won by just spam t1, or defences, this being the case of DSD, FFA games or to loong 1v1s where players are just bored like hell.

Efectivness isnt the cause here, its when you get t2.

Well, since EA sports lower-priced T2 facs, maybe we can use this to get a better idea of how T2 measures up vs T1? After all, the big question with jumping to T2 is "was that factory really a better investment than a baker's dozen of stumpies"? Which kind of skews any analysis of the uses of T2 units.

scifi wrote:In a 1v1 you wont go t2 its stupid, you only do so when you get massive expantion advantage (and if you have this) you just spam more t1.

Not true. Well if you have massiva advantage it's pointless to talk about balance in such situation. But there are times when t2 is worth it in a game with good players. What's stupid is making a statement like that (with no reasoning to back it up) when you don't too actively play or watch 1v1 games. T2 has some uses, but it is much more harder to do right than just keep up t1 spam.

And to clarify I always talk of 1v1, or 2v2/3v3 with good players, unless I mention otherwise.

i just ment i want them to be more used in the game.

Me too, but not in a way that you just have some units that are like t1 but better (croc/panther - ok they've got some extra abilities compared to t1 units which is cool, but thats on top of them being as or more costeffective in straight combat), cause then it adds to the game so much less than using more specialised hightier units.

Efectivness isnt the cause here, its when you get t2.

Isn't that what I said in the post you quoted?


Pxtl, comparing 13 stumpies to t2 lab isn't really right... Even if they have similar metal cost, t2 lab is much much easier to build, you need to add a lot more nanos/e to build 13 more stumpies compared to building the lab in a matter of seconds. If you've invested so much in nanos that you really can spend all your metal on stumpies without further investment in econ, then yes you should keep pumping tanks ~always in a tight game. Consider teching only if you have metal you can't easily spend.


Also keep in mind that the fucked up pathing Spring has gotten for the last months, hurts clumped t1 units a bit more than the bigger stuff.

Johannes wrote:

scifi wrote:In a 1v1 you wont go t2 its stupid, you only do so when you get massive expantion advantage (and if you have this) you just spam more t1.

Not true. Well if you have massiva advantage it's pointless to talk about balance in such situation. But there are times when t2 is worth it in a game with good players. What's stupid is making a statement like that (with no reasoning to back it up) when you don't too actively play or watch 1v1 games. T2 has some uses, but it is much more harder to do right than just keep up t1 spam.

And to clarify I always talk of 1v1, or 2v2/3v3 with good players, unless I mention otherwise.

i just ment i want them to be more used in the game.

Me too, but not in a way that you just have some units that are like t1 but better (croc/panther - ok they've got some extra abilities compared to t1 units which is cool, but thats on top of them being as or more costeffective in straight combat), cause then it adds to the game so much less than using more specialised hightier units.

Efectivness isnt the cause here, its when you get t2.

Isn't that what I said in the post you quoted?


Pxtl, comparing 13 stumpies to t2 lab isn't really right... Even if they have similar metal cost, t2 lab is much much easier to build, you need to add a lot more nanos/e to build 13 more stumpies compared to building the lab in a matter of seconds. If you've invested so much in nanos that you really can spend all your metal on stumpies without further investment in econ, then yes you should keep pumping tanks ~always in a tight game. Consider teching only if you have metal you can't easily spend.


Also keep in mind that the fucked up pathing Spring has gotten for the last months, hurts clumped t1 units a bit more than the bigger stuff.

well ok then seams that we agree.

one thing, i did activly played 1v1s 2v2s and 3v3s you migth not know me, its true, i dont care, i just pointed out that in most situations its relative to the t1 spamability, ok lets call it "hard" to go t2 when you can just spam t1 so eficiently.

Lets name it diferently then, make it easyer to progress to a tier 1.5 stage witch is using a T1 fac together with some of the cheaper units of a T2 fac.

Example:

20 stumpys 4 pilagers

I dont know the costs anymore and i migth be saying crap when comparing stumpys and pilagers, but last time i played PA, witch was the term of comparison i used on my first post to compare with BA, was the fact you could use pilagers efectivly with t1 units v a t1 unit spam.

Ofc I know you... :D

I just meant you shouldnt make such blanket statements, (t2 in 1v1 is stupid) when I had just talked of the cases where it's a choice (in game of any size same rules apply, the specifics just are different), it doesn't add much to the discussion. Even if for more inexperienced players it might be good to never consider that, and keep their strategies simple.
And its hard at times to see what the main subject of discussion is at different times too, and is it being argued how things ARE, or how they SHOULd be. Though you gotta know the former to apply good changes to reach the latter.

But dunno, in the end I don't thnk EA will catch on, casual DSD players don't care, and most good players seem to have issues with many changes. Also I don't know why many of the very small changes could not be just made into BA.

Johannes wrote:Also I don't know why many of the very small changes could not be just made into BA.

as far as i understood EA is TFC's balance testing playground, i suppose some chanes gonna be included sooner or later

Wombat wrote:

Johannes wrote:Also I don't know why many of the very small changes could not be just made into BA.

as far as i understood EA is TFC's balance testing playground, i suppose some chanes gonna be included sooner or later

Not if noone tests it :p

But yeah probably