Spring RTS Engine

You REALLY need sleep, GMN. REALLY REALLY need sleep!

Sleep! Am I getting through? SLEEEEEEP!

Fanger wrote:IF I think Unit X should counter Unit Y, and joe thinks Unit Z should counter Unit Y... Which one is right, becuase the game can be tweaked so that either Unit X, or Z can counter Y.. Thus it comes down to a matter of opinion.

There's still objective ways of assessing that, though. If unit Y has a useful role already, then also making it a counter to another unit could overpower it, making it a no-brainer. Same for unit Z. If they both have no real use then they're already underpowered and the game is imbalanced. If they both already have a use and are equally useful, then chosing one over the other is most likely going to make one overpowered compaired to the other and you're probably best going with a whole new unit.

Zoombie wrote:You REALLY need sleep, GMN. REALLY REALLY need sleep!

Sleep! Am I getting through? SLEEEEEEP!

You're the one who sounds like a zombie:

"sleeeeeeeeep... SLEEEEEEP... "

Deathblane wrote:The original Arm/Core premise, where Arm were supposed to be better at raiding while Core were supposed to be better at assault. Or in 1944, where the Germans will have defences and super heavy tanks, while the Americans will have numbers.

Good example. So, the gameplay element has been subjectively chosen, but you have to assess the units objectively around that premise. If you make static defenses too strong, then you weaken raiding as launching a raid becomes too costly, making ARM underpowered. You can still assess statistics, looking at win/loss ratios to determine racially where the imbalances lie. If you want to stick to your original gameplay choices, you can only strengthen ARM's units so far, at which point you then have to look at weakening static defenses.

In my opinion, game balance is based around the high-level gameplay elements. "good at raiding" and "good at assault" are not balance decisions, they're gameplay decisions and you make balance choices to fit in with those decisions. In fact, it's pretty logical to say that the "good at assault" race (CORE) should have weaker static defenses, otherwise you're basically giving them no weakness. The only subjective choices I can see are which defenses are weaker/stronger, in which case you can still objectively show the game is balanced by taking a large sample of games.

YOu fail to realize el capitano, that a unit can have its role completely altered in a second, thus making balance purely subjective, usually balance is decided before any units are made, at least on an overall level, individual balance tweaks then occur based on this already established idea.. its SUBJECTIVE, OPINION, it can be changed willy nilly, I can easily take the Maverick, and exchange its role to function like the luger, and make the luger have the role fo the Maverick, I simply need to alter their HP, speed, weapon, and moveinfo, and where they are built from.. and whamo your now building lugers instead of Mavs, and Mavs instead of lugers.. DO you see what I mean its subjective..

How effective a particular counter is to a particular tactic is a matter of opinion, if I think AA should be less potent, but aircraft more expensive, you might think AA should be more potent and aircraft less expensive, in both cases the AA still counters the Aircraft, but the numbers of each alter.. its an opinion.. either one will be "balanced" but neither one is right for the situation, its a matter of opinion, you think one is better, because that is your preference, not because it is actually better...

I'm very tempted to not reply, but I think I will anyway...

Felix the Cat wrote:<Snip flamebait>

You're basically inferring that I got pwned by Mavs hence I think His Holiness C_ydr is a bad person, and that you are simply protecting the innocent deity from some form of defiling upon His Holy Name.

Why are you spelling his name that way? I'm not inferring that you think Caydr is a bad person, I'm implying that you think Caydr can't balance AA, in particular Mavs.

Felix the Cat wrote:I didn't say that C_ydr couldn't balance AA. I said that he hasn't been successful in balancing Mavs in the past, and that they should be taken out. You are the only one saying that C_ydr can't balance AA.

Ok, so I misinterpreted you. Where did I say that he can't balance AA?

Felix the Cat wrote:<Snip stuff about tanks, not really contentious>

It does appear that C_ydr just messes around with numbers for the sake of messing around with numbers. I don't doubt that some or much of that messing around with numbers is justified, and I certainly appreciate the new additions and balance corrections that have been made.

Well if you accept that most of the 'messing around with the numbers' is justified, how can you not accept that 'messing with numbers' is how the mod gets balanced? You made it out in the original conversation like the 'messing around with numbers' was just random changes without rhyme or reason, but now you seem to be accepting they are justified. Is that true?

Felix the Cat wrote:Just because C_ydr puts in time to making AA doesn't give him a right to be considered infallible and free from sin. Last I checked you had to be elected by a conclave of cardinals to be considered as such.

I don't really see how I have compared Caydr with the Pope, nor how such a comparison is relevant? I just give him the respect due to someone that has spent so much time on a free product that I use and enjoy so much. I've made plenty of balance suggestion in the previos AA threads and probably will continue to do so - I certainly don't think any human's infallable.

Felix the Cat wrote:Finally, let me introduce you to the form of a logical argument:
A: Statement
B: Counter-statement
A: Riposte
B: Counter-riposte
A: Counter-counter-riposte
...and so on.

<Snip flamebait>

The first form of argument is not the type that incited this thread. The second one is. If you have something to say, say it. If your only defense is to insult someone's age, personality, or gender, then you're the one who needs to stop talking.

<Snip some more pointless stuff>

I am trying to argue my point in a logical and reasoned manner here, responding to your points. When did I insult your or anyones age, personality, gender etc?

Felix the Cat wrote:<snip yet more flamebait>

I have tried to address your points Felix, my main argument is that Caydr is doing a fine job of balancing AA, and I like the fact that the game changes subtly every release. I like the constant learning curve of new tactics etc. If AA ever stopped getting updated it would probably get pretty dull after a few months.

I would argue that AA is mainly balanced because the top level games seem to feature roughly 50-50 arm and core and no single unit dominates every game. Every game sees a variety of units used, with some 'core' (forgive the pun) units seeing more action that others, but then I think that's a good thing - some units are mainline troops, whereas others are specialised support.

In this respect, Mavericks are 'core' ARM troops, and as such you tend to see a decent number of them on the battlefield at t2, but I haven't seen any games that have been decided .. Hold on... I made this exact point in my last post and you've failed to respond to it:

Acidd_UK wrote:I have not seen any game that has been decided because mav's were overpowered.

So come on, use your own type 1 argument and respond. Why are mavericks unbalanced? Also, if you'd care to address my other points & questions above, I would appreciate it.

What does this have to do with a Question for Caydr? It was directed at Caydr and no one else, eh? You could have done that with a single PM instead of starting yet another flame thread. This entire thread is useless. Everyone knows AA fanboys are asskissers (in most cases), so why bother, Just ignore them. On the other hand most fanboys are asskissers, so this got nothing to do with AA.

Oh and keep your rants shorter pretty please, cause I for example am skipping posts with more than a 100 words unless I'm really interested.

Also I demand closure... :P

I believe that the original post is referring to [tN] as the sychophants. As a member of [tN] I'm trying to defend myself and my views. The topic should be renamed though...

That is a good idea because it is confusing.

See, Acidd, that entire post is not what you said yesterday.

Now that I've called you out on it you're actually using rational arguments.

If you had used rational arguments in the first place we wouldn't have this problem, now would we?

Instead, you chose to insult me personally when I gave my negative opinion regarding some elements of balance in AA.

So you're not going to respond to my points?

i think its his point to not respond..

This thread isn't about whether or not Mavs or anything else is unbalanced; if we really must have that discussion then we could take it to the AA thread.

This thread is about AA fanboyism and people treating Caydr as if he is some sort of superior being.

Rattle, you obviously don't get the point of the thread... also, no backseat moderation, you know the rules.

Who exactly treats Caydr as a God? All i ever seer is people flaming him, and occasionly thanking him when a new version comes out..

Objectivity is not something you can possess in the evaluation of anything, for if you were objective you would not need or for that matter have the means to evaluate.

/me quickly closes the door to his secret shri... err... cupboard.

Yes, it's just a cupboard.

you've only got a secret shri.. cupboard? Well i've got a super secret temp.. err shed!

You should come round and beat each other off into my shri..... I mean cupboard.

Its a deal!

Rattle, you obviously don't get the point of the thread... also, no backseat moderation, you know the rules.

Fix the title then.