| Would you like balancing changes to be put into effect? |
| Yes. |
 
|
63% |
[ 12 ] |
| No. |
|
21% |
[ 4 ] |
| Yes, these ideas are awesome, and I'd love to have very balanced uniwar! |
|
16% |
[ 3 ] |
| Total Votes : 19 |
|
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar/feecee9f1643651799ede2740927317a.jpg)
waxoid
Messages: 442,
Joined: Aug 07, 2010,
Location: Seattle, WA
Offline
|
|
waxoid
Messages: 442,
Joined: Aug 07, 2010,
Location: Seattle, WA
Offline
|
own's questions:
* Eclipse aerial to 14 – I support vs. khral but I don't like it vs. helis, and I'm not sure it affects balance enough (reliably crippling swarmer to 1 vs. 2 isn't a big difference, since most anything including a half dead mech can finish it off from there.) So I vote no.
* UV on buried – I say yes. Maybe half damage round up, meaning it takes 3 hits from UV in same turn to do 2 damage to a particular buried ant? Wonky but makes thematic sense and would help keep sim spam from being overly devastating in major siege situations. This a coding change though, yeah?
* Sim mobility 7 – I've been flogging that for awhile, still support. It will help in early game as well as vs. ant siege.
others:
* Eclipse mobility 11 – says me. small but a slight help in mixed plains/base/dessert, every bit helps.
* Other eclipse improvements for terrain – interesting, but requires coding changes and could easily go too far and take some of the remaining fun out of sap/titans (sap being able to use terrain to raid with helis).
* stomp damage increase – I vote yes, even in addition to UV. could be 1 for marauder/speeder and 2 for everything heavier. probably a code change though.
* Underlings can't heal underground – makes sense for Titan siege but in general I say no, it's an important part of ant ability to hide when they're almost dead, heal and pop back up. I say stick with UV change and stomp damage increase.
* Eclipse g. heavy to 5. Well, there are three components to khral dominance – wyrms, swarmers and ants, all three of which can feel o/p relative to Titans based on map. None of the above does anything about the wyrm factor which is pretty significant – Titans only reliable answer is really the walker which is expensive, vulnerable and difficult. The eclipse buff to 4 g. heavy was a slight help here, and it is interesting to think about notching that up to 5 to guarantee 5 damage. Can't avoid that making the eclipse more versatile against saps, but that seems tolerable. I'd say we go for this just because we're not addressing the wyrm problem with anything else.
|
|
|
waxoid
Messages: 442,
Joined: Aug 07, 2010,
Location: Seattle, WA
Offline
|
|
waxoid
Messages: 442,
Joined: Aug 07, 2010,
Location: Seattle, WA
Offline
|
Meanwhile back on SvT:
* Battery. I suggest keeping at 650 but give full move after of 6 and g. heavy to 11. That will ratchet the tactical combinations up even further into brainmelt territory, and the g. heavy boost will ensure 3 damage to plasmas and help tanks stay alive. I think this is necessary. The move after change is *awesome* but doing it with the cost bump means we haven't really dented the SvT problem. A bigger buff like this might actually be interesting (and yet could easily still be too little, 5 range is that god-like!)
* Engineer def to 1. Seems a reasonable answer to sims getting faster. Though thematically I think letting engineers have mobility 7 is fine too and helps vs. Titans. I still don't agree with you Hawaiian on it being too easy to hunt mechas down – they're the same speed and mechas can friggin teleport to safety.  If they get tracked down a bit by engineers post-teleport well that's the dangers of para-warping into enemy territory.
And on KvS, I've only played a couple of games where I used range plague yet. It's definitely nasty esp. since we haven't got a cooldown (code change, presumably). So KvS seems fine pending full assessment of that one. Strange that we haven't had more discussion about it. Guess it's okay?
Eh, sims wasn't there a place I was supposed to be writing this down... just wanted to brain dump before I disappear for a bit.
|
|
|
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar/0c1c995b77ea7312f887ddd9f9d35de5.png)
simsverd
Messages: 921,
Joined: Dec 02, 2010,
Location: Bergen, Norway
Offline
|
|
simsverd
Messages: 921,
Joined: Dec 02, 2010,
Location: Bergen, Norway
Offline
|
waxoid wrote:
And on KvS, I've only played a couple of games where I used range plague yet. It's definitely nasty esp. since we haven't got a cooldown (code change, presumably). So KvS seems fine pending full assessment of that one. Strange that we haven't had more discussion about it. Guess it's okay?
Eh, sims wasn't there a place I was supposed to be writing this down... just wanted to brain dump before I disappear for a bit.
Thx for some "high level" and thorough comments
I think they can change stats on units serverside, but some changes are code changes that will break compatibility and force new version on all (effectively removing the last RIM and Symbian users). Im not sure the details here.. but battery price, battery move after attack, lev air +1 and infector plague range 2 was done serverside. Cooldown on plague require new version..
I am gathering the comments and "votes" from the high level players in a google doc and plan to ask for some of these changes some time later (needs more discussion). I will in the process find out what changes are easy and what are not...
|
Moderator of gamechat and forum. Tourney admin.
Send me a PM here or invite me to a game if you want to ask me something, suggest a map for tourney or just wanna play a game  |
|
|
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar/14d9e8007c9b41f57891c48e07c23f57.png)
Nicko
Messages: 430,
Joined: Mar 07, 2010,
Location: Breda, The Netherlands
Offline
|
|
Nicko
Messages: 430,
Joined: Mar 07, 2010,
Location: Breda, The Netherlands
Offline
|
Care to share that document sims? 
I wanted to know if there is anyone else that would agree to buff the sapien tank? Granted it's the cheapest and is just 1 defense below other tanks, but it's just worthless overall.
Since it's 50 credits below pinzer, but lacks air attack AND has a little less defense and even 2 less damage against ground light units, would it be too much to ask for a better attack against heavy units? That way it still dies easily, but at least it fights back much better than before. The quantity of attack added is open to debate of course, I would settle for one but won't turn away +2 bumping it to 12, but that's probably my sapien player side that's talking 
Thoughts?
|
"I hate the world's population, it's too large and getting larger. People need to slow down on the sex!"
-00101101
Wandering... |
|
|
simsverd
Messages: 921,
Joined: Dec 02, 2010,
Location: Bergen, Norway
Offline
|
|
simsverd
Messages: 921,
Joined: Dec 02, 2010,
Location: Bergen, Norway
Offline
|
I can share it.. at least to wiew. Send me your e-mail in a PM. (the doc is very much work in progress .. and do not contain all that has been said or voted on)
I agree that the tank should be buffed, but i personally think +1 defence will be enough.
Saps can actually do very well vs titans with good positioning and clever use of engineers, helis, batterys and marauders... just look at the writeup of waxoids game vs wolfcat/celeb in dan1s tourney 2.
|
Moderator of gamechat and forum. Tourney admin.
Send me a PM here or invite me to a game if you want to ask me something, suggest a map for tourney or just wanna play a game |
|
|
waxoid
Messages: 442,
Joined: Aug 07, 2010,
Location: Seattle, WA
Offline
|
|
waxoid
Messages: 442,
Joined: Aug 07, 2010,
Location: Seattle, WA
Offline
|
I still think tank mobility to 9 is interesting, emphasize sap mobility and tactics/gangup. I think the main counter-argument is that it would help sap more where they already win (smaller maps), however the ability to swing to different fronts faster than Titans can swing their defense on mid and large maps would be the interesting bit. In any case we should lock on battery move-after to full 6 and +1 to g. heavy, which I think we have a bunch of agreement on. Hope we can do that soon.
Meanwhile on the TvK question, it occurred to me this morning that we haven't discussed the possibility of reducing wyrm g. heavy attack much, I don't think. Thinking about it, that seems like quite a good idea - drop it to 9 for sure, probably even 8 would mean better balance. Wyrms aren't key vs. marauders (and marauder low defense means g. heavy 8 or 9 still thumps them), but this will have a big effect on wyrm dominance vs. Titans, making plasmas stand up a bit better to the wyrm-led gang-up assaults, keep eclipses and swarmers a bit less crippled after wyrm hit. No code change, and we could get immediate clean balance help. That would remove the need for hacks like the +1 to eclipse g. heavy I recommended. Thoughts on that one?
I updated the document with that and my notes from this thread.
|
|
|
J.C.
Messages: 208,
Joined: Jul 05, 2011,
Location: Italy
Offline
|
|
J.C.
Messages: 208,
Joined: Jul 05, 2011,
Location: Italy
Offline
|
It's hard to find ways to balance something that can't be balanced: different races with different strengths and weaknesses, have advantages on certain maps and disadvantages on certain others.
I don't think that the races need many changes in the name of balance. This thing is not really important, at least not the most important one.
Most of the discussions over balance are, in my idea, caused by the lack of realty in the current skills-measuring system, represented by the ladder.
Every map is not perfectly balanced, and this thing can't be solved at all. But you can still try to make it meaningless: since a single imbalanced matchup can't state who is better between the contenders, the easiest and most fair thing that solves any map balance discussion is represented by the mirror games: both players play in both spots, so the best will win both games or one game in less turns. In this way even an imbalanced matchup like tit vs sap on jungle can tell who is better.
This is just the idea of a loosy player, of course, so it can be wrong, but i support it since i'm sure it's a valid point that can remove most of the complaints over balance.
Now about the balance.
We should not focus on changes affecting a single unit, because i think that this will cause a huger disadvantage\advantage than needed.
A single change can't improve the faults you pointed out in your document, Sims. I think that there should be some changes to many units of all races to make a single, small, useful change. Because you must keep the current balance for every matchup and improve the balance for a specified one.
Cheers.
|
Test my maps:
1-on-1
ColdestPlace - Tiny Desert - SkyAndSand
3-on-3
DeadFlower
David
4-on-4
BasesGaloreXL6
BasesGaloreXL7 |
|
|
simsverd
Messages: 921,
Joined: Dec 02, 2010,
Location: Bergen, Norway
Offline
|
|
simsverd
Messages: 921,
Joined: Dec 02, 2010,
Location: Bergen, Norway
Offline
|
J.C. wrote:
.... the easiest and most fair thing that solves any map balance discussion is represented by the mirror games: both players play in both spots, so the best will win both games or one game in less turns. In this way even an imbalanced matchup like tit vs sap on jungle can tell who is better.
Now about the balance.
We should not focus on changes affecting a single unit, because i think that this will cause a huger disadvantage\advantage than needed.
A single change can't improve the faults you pointed out in your document, Sims. I think that there should be some changes to many units of all races to make a single, small, useful change. Because you must keep the current balance for every matchup and improve the balance for a specified one.
Cheers.
Mirror games is an already discussed topic between the devs. This is related to a possible pro-ladder.
I think you never will see mirror games in other games than that - you should only force extra games on those that really wants them...
(i agree that mirror matches will asses the fairness.. but the races must be balanced still.. to keep the game more fun)¨
And i disaggree on that you should not discuss balance between races. It should always be a goal to have the races as balanced as possible. And you are underestimating the current efforst of some of the games best players... ofc we are trying to look at possible side effects and seeing the differnt suggestions in context of a bigger picture - you cant read all directly from the doc.. there have been much discussions in-game among many top players.
|
Moderator of gamechat and forum. Tourney admin.
Send me a PM here or invite me to a game if you want to ask me something, suggest a map for tourney or just wanna play a game |
|
|
J.C.
Messages: 208,
Joined: Jul 05, 2011,
Location: Italy
Offline
|
|
J.C.
Messages: 208,
Joined: Jul 05, 2011,
Location: Italy
Offline
|
Where did i say that you should not talk about balance of races?
You didn't understand me, or i didn't explain well.
Maybe you misunderstood my last sentences:
J.C. wrote:A single change can't improve the faults you pointed out in your document, Sims. I think that there should be some changes to many units of all races to make a single, small, useful change. Because you must keep the current balance for every matchup and improve the balance for a specified one.
I think that we should talk about changes that improve a kind of matchup (e.g. Khraleans vs. Titans on big maps) but not affecting the others (Khraleans vs. Sapiens on small maps, Khraleans vs. Sapiens on big maps, Khraleans vs. Titans on small maps... and so on for all the kind of different matchups).
|
Test my maps:
1-on-1
ColdestPlace - Tiny Desert - SkyAndSand
3-on-3
DeadFlower
David
4-on-4
BasesGaloreXL6
BasesGaloreXL7 |
|
|
waxoid
Messages: 442,
Joined: Aug 07, 2010,
Location: Seattle, WA
Offline
|
|
waxoid
Messages: 442,
Joined: Aug 07, 2010,
Location: Seattle, WA
Offline
|
I think that is how we try to talk about it JC, feel free to critique any proposed change based on impact to any of those sorts of matchups. It is understood that 'perfect balance' for all races and all maps is not possible, the goal is to increase balance on average.
sims what do you think of wyrm g. heavy to 9 (or  ?
|
|
|
simsverd
Messages: 921,
Joined: Dec 02, 2010,
Location: Bergen, Norway
Offline
|
|
simsverd
Messages: 921,
Joined: Dec 02, 2010,
Location: Bergen, Norway
Offline
|
I think that it could be a good change. It has limited impact on khral vs sap.. since wyrms usually is for helis and you rarely see saps make tanks vs khral...
I think reduce 1 to start with.
|
Moderator of gamechat and forum. Tourney admin.
Send me a PM here or invite me to a game if you want to ask me something, suggest a map for tourney or just wanna play a game |
|
|
J.C.
Messages: 208,
Joined: Jul 05, 2011,
Location: Italy
Offline
|
|
J.C.
Messages: 208,
Joined: Jul 05, 2011,
Location: Italy
Offline
|
waxoid wrote:I think that is how we try to talk about it JC, feel free to critique any proposed change based on impact to any of those sorts of matchups.
You completely missed my point. What i said is that a single change to a unit can modify too many matches, like to give +1 to sapiens tank mobility.
Anyway, i'm not criticizing anyone, i just said my personal view on it, that you may agree or disagree with... I understand that high level players have more precise ideas than worse players, i never meant to sound arrogant teaching anything to you. As said, i just told you my view, i will remove my posts, i don't want to be taken into arguments that i DIDN'T SEARCH FOR.
Sorry for that, my bad.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at Dec 21, 2012 00:21
|
Test my maps:
1-on-1
ColdestPlace - Tiny Desert - SkyAndSand
3-on-3
DeadFlower
David
4-on-4
BasesGaloreXL6
BasesGaloreXL7 |
|
|
simsverd
Messages: 921,
Joined: Dec 02, 2010,
Location: Bergen, Norway
Offline
|
|
simsverd
Messages: 921,
Joined: Dec 02, 2010,
Location: Bergen, Norway
Offline
|
I dont understand what you mean JC. Please elaborate...
And discussions is ofc open for all players, but it is rather obvious that game experience and skill are relevant in the discussions. You are a good player JC and you can clearly contribute good here if you would like that.
|
Moderator of gamechat and forum. Tourney admin.
Send me a PM here or invite me to a game if you want to ask me something, suggest a map for tourney or just wanna play a game |
|
|
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar/321cf86b4c9f5ddd04881a44067c2a5a.png)
Cpt Hawaiian
Messages: 199,
Joined: Sep 12, 2010,
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Offline
|
|
Cpt Hawaiian
Messages: 199,
Joined: Sep 12, 2010,
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Offline
|
I am still dreaming about a cooldown marauder ability Nitro. Every game I play against Titans as Saps I can see where marauders would actually be useful! Right now, they're almost worthless against Titans because of strong speeders and plasmas. But if the marauder could employ Nitro, which would give it a third move of 6 or 7 points, they could basically sacrifice themselves to get in and hit a walker. And I think it's a fair trade. A full strength marauder will only do 4-5 dam on average to a walker. So it's trading 250 credits (because that marauder will be destroyed) for 375 temporary credits of damage to the walker line. It could help protect your paper tanks from that plasma wall. I just think marauders need more utiility against Titans, and this is a way to do it without making tanks too much like pinzers.
|
---------------------------------------
MODERATOR has spoken. |
|
|
J.C.
Messages: 208,
Joined: Jul 05, 2011,
Location: Italy
Offline
|
|
J.C.
Messages: 208,
Joined: Jul 05, 2011,
Location: Italy
Offline
|
I like this idea more than all others. But how will this change balance for sap v sap or sap v khra?
also, i think that third move should lead to a less damage made and shouldn't be counted for gangup. what about this?
|
Test my maps:
1-on-1
ColdestPlace - Tiny Desert - SkyAndSand
3-on-3
DeadFlower
David
4-on-4
BasesGaloreXL6
BasesGaloreXL7 |
|
|
|
|
![[Search]](/templates/default/images/icon_mini_search.gif){kind=icon}
![[Recent Topics]](/templates/default/images/icon_mini_recentTopics.gif){kind=icon}
![[Login]](/templates/default/images/icon_mini_login.gif){kind=icon}
Login
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
![[Up]](/templates/default/images/icon_up.gif){kind=icon}
![[Email]](/templates/default/images/icon_email.gif){kind=icon}
![[WWW]](/templates/default/images/icon_www.gif){kind=icon}