[Search] Search   [Recent Topics] Recent   [Hottest Topics] Hottest   [Login] Login
Messages posted by: EVR1022
Forum Index Profile for EVR1022 »» Messages posted by EVR1022
General Discussion » Next Balance Update Discussion February 2016 » Go to message
I tend to agree that boosting the Swarmer Ground Heavy isn't the best way to go. Ground Light to 8-9 would be useful without disrupting KvT balance. +1 mobility or even +1 defense would help, too.
New Feature Request » Should the unit types be adjusted? » Go to message
In most cases you use other units to clear the space the underling is on.
New Feature Request » Should the unit types be adjusted? » Go to message
  amidama wrote:why not to use burried underling? thats a 5-6 damage, underground attack from a forest,
hen swarmers get +3 gang-up as with tank.

Just trying to show how a Swarmer could easily do 2 damage w/ no counter vs Plasma before. It was too strong, especially since it is also the most efficient Walker-killer in the game and could hit the Eclipse and Speeder hard, too. Now, it only does 1 damage to Plasma with +3 gang-up and it's more balanced vs the Eclipse and Walker as well. But - the adjustment, while mostly good, went too far vs the Speeder and Marauder IMO.
New Feature Request » Should the unit types be adjusted? » Go to message
  amidama wrote:and i didnt get it.
speeder has the defence of 8, and plasma has the defence of 14, but you are saying that swarmer makes the same damage, 2, to each of them?

Scenario 1 - Previously, the Swarmer had a ground heavy attack of 5. One reason this needed to change: A buried underling in a forest resurfaces to attack a Plasma Tank. That's 9 attack (3 base attack + 2 terrain + 4 resurface) vs 14 defense. 63% chance to do 2 damage. Then, Swarmer attacks from a range of 2 with a +3 gang-up bonus (total attack power = 8 ). This is also likely to do 2 damage. Rinse & repeat with another Underling / Swarmer. That Plasma Tank is going down too quickly against the weakest units in the Khralean army. The Swarmer can easily be set up for +3 gang-up by the Underling, the Garuda, and the Pinzer. Add in the Wyrm and that's 5 units that can effectively damage the highest defense unit in the game.

Scenario 2 - Now, the Swarmer only has 4 attack vs ground heavy, and the Speeder has 8 defense. Swarmer attacks Speeder from a range of 2 to avoid a counter attack. 49% chance of 3 damage, 42% chance of 2 damage. Speeder HP down to 7-8. Then, two more Swarmers attack from range of 2, each receiving a +1 gang-up bonus. 17% chance of 2 damage, 58% chance of 3 damage, 24% chance of 4 damage. Speeder usually will end up with 1-2 HP when all is said and done.

So what do you do? Raise the Swarmer attack? That leads back to scenario 1. Lower the Speeder defense? That leads to other, bigger problems.
New Feature Request » Should the unit types be adjusted? » Go to message
I guess I don't get the objection - the ground medium classification seems more accurate than ground heavy. A jeep is lighter than a tank, right?

And it would impact far more units than just Swarmers. Each 1 pt adjustment impacts the entire race match up. Being able to fine tune those match ups is a good thing. Balance is the key to any strategy game lasting a long time. It's why chess is still the most popular strategy game.

There are other small adjustments I think would be beneficial besides those I've already mentioned, but 2 or 3 small adjustments at a time is enough - can always make other tweaks later. Right now, helping the Swarmer and the Eclipse is most important.
New Feature Request » Should the unit types be adjusted? » Go to message
  Apercent wrote:I don't see what's wrong with the current system to justify this change. Sure there's 9 units, but that's really not a lot. That can't even fit a bag of mnms

The reason their is different types is to show you how they are effected by terrain. Maruader gets the same effects as tanks, so it has no reason to be something else

Different units are NOT different classes because of how they are effected by damage (that's what defense and attack stats are for).

I mean, the attack stat is based off the class, so I don't agree with this.

Also, I think it'd be easier to navigate through a forest with a Marauder than a Tank. Perhaps the terrain effects should be modified slightly for the Ground Medium class, but this might do more harm than good.
New Feature Request » New races overview » Go to message
Appreciate the overview. I haven't had time to look extensively at the ideas yet, so this is helpful. When Xavi gets closer to creating the new races I'll have some ideas, too. Not for the creative aspect (you guys seem to have that pretty well covered and I'm just not very good at that stuff), but I'm good with the math & strategy part - balancing stats, tactical ideas, etc.
New Feature Request » Should the unit types be adjusted? » Go to message
Let me post some of the math about why this helps -

Right now, there are 9 infantry units. However, 3 of them are converted units that are rare. Another 3 are healers. That leaves 3 'primary' infantry units. So a ground light attack value must account for 4 things: How does it impact 1) the Marine 2) the Underling 3) the Mecha and 4) does it one-hit a healer? Since the Marine and Underling have the same defense, and the Mecha is only 1 higher, this is pretty easy to work out.

Likewise, there are only 3 aerial units and 3 aquatic units, so these attack values are relatively easy to balance.

There are 9 (!!!) ground heavy units, with defense values ranging from 4 to 14, so adjusting that attack value at all has big implications.

By adding a new type, and re-distributing some existing units into that type, it will make it far easier to achieve balance. This will be true all the more so when new units and especially new races are added. Without this change we could eventually have 15-20 ground heavy units.
New Feature Request » Should the unit types be adjusted? » Go to message
  amidama wrote:it will mean that you will make two, very similar attack options, that will differ only for very high level players. thats a lot of complexity added.
exlipse is objectively quite weak, and is rarely used anyways. in other topic someone already offerd to make it defence better.
this, together with returning normal attack of swarmers will solve the problem.

and in general using swarmer, that is suppose to be anti-ground light against speeders, especially the most protected one, is a bad idea...

i mean that there are other ways to keep the balance, rather than making whole new set of rules to solve a single problem (you may want to add more example, where your solution can help)

example: swarmer is weak versus speeder or strong against eclipse.
simple solution (no new complexity added) - make eclipse better protected, make swarmer GH attack better, make speeders less protected (take any two. i would take first and second).
or hard solution: make a new unit type and add this attack type to all units in the game (thats about 24 values to add!)

1) It is true that it will add a lot of new stats for relatively small gains. That said, now that you can 'preview' damage, do many non-top level players look at the stats extensively?

2) Of your proposed solutions, higher defense eclipse may be viable. Higher attack swarmer is not, because that makes it better than 50% chance to do 2 damage to a plasma tank when it has +3 gang-up (relatively easy to accomplish with buried underlings). Like I mentioned in the OP, many balance 'solutions' like this have unintended side effects. The new type would really help at eliminating these side effects.

That said, it is true that these things would impact the top 25% of players far more than the other 75%. But I think that a better balanced game does make it more enjoyable for everyone, even if they don't fully understand why it is better balanced.

Another potential example - Buried underlings do a ton of damage to tank-type units (this isn't logical from a 'realism' viewpoint by the way . It might be beneficial to reduce their ground heavy attack to 2, while leaving their ground medium attack at 3. Small adjustment (and it would need testing - I'm not sure on this one), but certainly has potential benefits.

And in the previous example, the new type would help make the Eclipse a more effective, worthwhile build by giving it a solid ground medium attack.
New Feature Request » Should the unit types be adjusted? » Go to message
  amidama wrote:marauder and tank has a defence difference of about 10 points. I dont understand so far, how exactly splitting ground heavy into ground heavy and ground medium would help?
any examples where you want to use this?

Good question.

I'm going to use Khralean vs Titan as an example. The Swarmer currently has a ground heavy attack of 4. This value used to be 5, but it made the Swarmer too strong against the Eclipse and Plasma Tank. So, the value was reduced. However, this changed the expected damage against the Speeder to nearly a coin flip between 2-3. This means that, right now, 3 fully healthy Swarmers will need 1 critical hit and no weak hits to take down a single speeder if they all attack from 2 spaces away.

If we implement my proposal, we could change the ground medium attack to 5 (the previous value for ground heavy attack), but leave the ground heavy attack at 4. Then 3 Swarmer will, most likely, kill the Speeder without having to take damage. And it makes sense (at least to me) that 750c worth of units and 3 actions should accomplish that.
New Feature Request » Should the unit types be adjusted? » Go to message
  Duaneski wrote:One thing working against this idea: I imagine this being a huuuuge rewrite. Not 100% if it'd be as bad as I think ... But I feel like having to go through and change every instance of a value for 2-5 units would be a pretty big undertaking.

This is a valid point - I have almost no knowledge of coding so I have no clue how much work this would be.
New Feature Request » Should the unit types be adjusted? » Go to message
  amidama wrote:
I can't use them in random games for the moment. Too weak vs Sapiens, and too not fun vs other Khraleans.

I agree, kharleans is the worst choise because of boring swarmerVSswarmer fights and being weak against sap. but thats the problem, offer something to solve it =)
for example make swarmers (very) bad against aerial and make wyrm much, much better against aerial or something like this. splitting the defence types will not solve this problem with kharleans, in my opinion.

I have offered suggestions to re-balance that in another thread. But I actually do think this could help Khralean vs Khralean when the new unit types are added. Logically, any new Khralean ground unit would either be ground light or ground medium. I mean, how many 'tank' type units can an organic race have? A ground medium unit with a solid aerial attack would do wonders for K v K battles (and K v S battles). Allowing the Swarmer to do a reasonable amount of damage to that unit would be important. If it's ground light, and the Swarmer can attack it with a power of 8 (likely change coming soon) from a range of 2, then that unit likely wouldn't be cost effective (probably would cost at least 200c). But if it's ground medium, then the Swarmer is only hitting it with, say, 5-6 attack power.
New Feature Request » Should the unit types be adjusted? » Go to message
  LkASr wrote:no, Uniwar is a much simpler game and it is fine as it is and it's not that worth it when it comes to the unit pool (8, but will become 10 in the future), and it also creates balance to the units themselves (tanks > cars > artillery (have mecha support for Walkers tho)), plus a group of 3 soldiers on terrain is more than a bargain against cars, heck Marines and Mechas can 1v1 a swarmer, 2 cars would make good bargain on an Eclipse (and aerial units) and run away for repairs, tanks are supposed to be walls for squishy units *ahem,artillery*, and aerial is meant for offensive pressure. It's just how you play your units.

Just to be clear, I'm not proposing ANY major balance changes. But even 1 attack point can make a significant difference in top level tactics. The only reason I'm proposing this is to allow us to make those balance adjustments without unintended side effects.
New Feature Request » Should the unit types be adjusted? » Go to message
  amidama wrote:Yeah, pinzer is the worst unit from the realis point of view. Probably it can throw rocks, or catch low flying aircraft, it looks mobile enough =)
but Im strongly against any more shifting away from the realism...

Fair enough. I just value the strategy aspect more. TBH, the entire Khralean race is rather questionable from a realism standpoint. But they are cool nonetheless It's my favorite race even though I can't use them in random games for the moment. Too weak vs Sapiens, and too not fun vs other Khraleans.
New Feature Request » Should the unit types be adjusted? » Go to message
  amidama wrote:how would you physically explain that a kinetic charge with a flight speed of 2 km/s hit and penetrate tank armor, but cant do the same with a armored vehicle?
weapons that should be used against artilery, speeders and tanks are the same, just the matter of armor thickness...
with infantry its understandable that they have low armor but they are using terrain to get bonuses, with aerial its obsious that they are moving too fast and can avoid non-guided missiles.
But why weapon that is designed to destroy tanks cant destroy an armored vehicle?

I suppose I can't, but I also can't explain how a Pinzer could physically attack aerial units. That said, it's necessary for the Pinzer to be able to attack aerial units so that the game remains balanced.

Further, I think it's reasonable to assume that a lighter weight, faster unit like a Marauder has less armor than a Tank, and therefore would be easier for a Marine to damage.

Honestly, though, I don't worry too much about the 'realism' of the game because, well, it's not real. I simply think this adjustment could make the strategy more interesting.
Forum Index Profile for EVR1022 »» Messages posted by EVR1022
Powered by JForum 2.1.9 © - 2020-04-14 v124 - UniWar website