T2/T3 land balance balanceteam only

[Zock]

This thread is to discuss everything regarding the balance between t2 and t3. Only balanceteam members can post here, use the other thread for guest contributions.

In specific, but not exclusive:

T3 units in general
do all t3 units need a change? (arty, snipers, titan...)
T3 tech upgrade (factory)
according land t4 adaption
t3 nerf leading to a buff to commander/pd/everything that i used vs t3

[pip]

My take on this issue:
1) I don't think all t3 units need to be changed, only heavy t3 units and snipers to be more user friendly (gameplay improvement rather than balance). Snipers are not imba compared to t2 units so I will not discuss them here, neither other possible small improvements here and there to other t3 units.

2) I don't think the t3 factory cost should be adjusted to fix the problem. It's already quite expensive and it would be bad for team games where players would not even care about t3 land if the factory is too expensive, and just go for the experimentals through ACU t3 engy suit.

3)In my opinion, the problem is that Harbingers, Othuum, Bricks, and Percivals are too strong. Loyalists and Titans are mostly fine. Titans are often laughed at but they are probably in a better balance spot compared to t2 units than the more expensive t3 units that are too strong. However, I don't exclude the need to adjust Loyalists too after a nerf to the heaviest units, because they are clearly very good and may become too strong, relatively speaking.

4) To adress the strength of the too strong units, there are several possible approaches:
- costs nerfs, but this is very tedious and hard to judge unless heaps of games are played. The current costs make sense, and people are used to them.
- Health nerf : it is also tricky because it involves veterancy, which was fine tuned in the last patch and is in the right place IMO.
- speed nerf : there is not much room there because Percival and Bricks are very slow already, and making them even slower will not suddenly allow t2 units to kill them.
- DPS nerf : I would prefer to adjust simply DPS, through rate of fire. That's an easy change, 4 or 5 values to adress the whole problem, or at least the biggest part.

5) What nerf value should be applied? It's hard to say without real games feedback, but I would say between 10% and 20% DPS nerf. I would personnally start with 20% DPS nerf (rate of fire nerf). This would not change the feel of the units much, but reduce their efficiency noticeably enough. Mind you, I believe that is the maximum nerf we should try, and that it should be tested first to see the impact of this approach. Then, if it looks to work well but seems too big of a nerf, we can fine tune it afterwards.
On a side note, 20% rate of fire nerf is also the easiest value to have clear numbers and round DPS without unwanted differences that would appear due to the way the engine works (with round ticks):

- Percivals would fire every 5 seconds instead of every 4 seconds for 320 DPS (from 400)
- Bricks would fire every 0.5 seconds instead of every 0.4 for 300 DPS (from 375)
- Harbingers would fire once every second instead of once every 0.8 seconds for 300 DPS (from 375)
- Othuum would fire their long range weapon once every 5 seconds instead of once every 4 seconds, and we would adjust the twin weapons damage to 60 so that it makes a round 320 total DPS (from 400).

6) After that nerf, T4 would need to be adjusted a bit, but I think it can be done first through veterancy. As a matter of fact, we can revert (or adjust) the veterancy buffs the land experimentals recieved in the last patch precisely because they became underpowered compared to t3 units, and see how the new balance feels before thinking about other adjustments, big or small.

[Zock]

First a few stats:

Striker:
56 mass
266 energy
280 BT
300 hp
24 dps
range 18

Pillar:
198 mass
990 energy
880 BT
1500 HP
53 dps
range 23

Roughly, a pillar is just 4 striker, only with half dps, and a significant range advantage

Now pillar to harbinger (both mid-allround units)

Harb:
840 mass
9600 energy
3600 BT
5900 HP
375 dps
range 28

Roughly, a harbinger is 4 pillars, but instead of half, almost double dps. (4 times the value it would have if t1>t2 would be linear to t2>t3) and just as pillar to striker significant range advantage. Also notable are the higher energy cost in relation, but energy you use to build t3 is cheaper then energy you use to build t1/t2 usually. So its not that extreme.


Same example with a heavy unit:

Obsidian:
360 mass
1800 energy
1600 BT
2750 HP
120 dps
range 20

6 striker:
336 mass
1600 energy
1680 BT
1800 HP
144 dps
range 18

It is not that obvious like the last example, because there is a tradeoff with range/speed for hp/dps, but the difference is not huge.

Now percival (same role as obsidian):
1280 mass
14000 energy
6000 BT
9300 HP
400 dps
range 35

3,5 obsidians have:
1170 mass
6300 energy
5600 BT
9625 HP
420 DPS
range 20

Energy, just as with the harb, is not that extreme. The values look actually close to what striker to obsidian is, so in theory the percy is a well balanced unit vs t2. Only exception is the range, and how important range is, can we see with the aurora i.e. The 5 range advantage of pillar over striker, and harbinger over pillar, is already really strong. The range advantage of the percival over the obsidian is insane. That doesn't mean it is the range that has to be lowered, but there need to be a tradeoff equal to this rangeadvantage, if a balance between percy and obsidian should get archived like a balance between striker and obsidian.

Same with the harbinger, that would need, if you take only this stats, a 75% dps reduction, to get a balance to pillar like pillar has to striker.

Now 75% would propably be over the top, and this stats don't tell everything (like the efford to go to t3, the still higher energy cost, even when its cheaper, etc) but i want to use this as starting point to demonstrate the dimension of the issue.

[Zock]

Now some other facts:

All heavy t3 units need to be changed together. Percy nerf without harbinger nerf is impossible. But they don't have to get the same kind of nerf.

The light t3 bots titan and loyalist can be changed independly. They have the speed advantage, that must be considered when compared to t2, not only firepower stats.

All utility t3 units might not need changes, as far as i see it now. Snipers need changes independly of the whole t2/t3 thing though.

All nerfs that the heavy t3 units get, must be applied to t4 land units too, to not mess things up. Maybe even additional ones. I don't belive you can do it only with vet like pip. If t3 units get a 20% dps nerf, exps should get just the same.

The stats of the t3 factory can be changed, but not too much, if you don't want to make t3 rushes on smaller maps impossible (and i don't want that, they just need to get really risky, like a very early t2 rush is now, or more)

Additional to the possible nerfs pip mentioned (HP/DPS, speed, cost), a lot can be archived with range, and having units with big range differences are very hard to balance with using the other stats only (see aurora, applies aswell to the heavy siege bots, and limited to harbinger/othuum)

And now the bomb : I don't belive a 20% dps nerf would be sufficent. For example in harbinger, it would be more arround 25-50%, maybe even more. Or similar range/hp/cost nerfs instead.

Also: PDs and OC will indirectly get slightly buffed too. I don't see that beeing a real issue though.

[pip]

All nerfs that the heavy t3 units get, must be applied to t4 land units too, to not mess things up. Maybe even additional ones. I don't belive you can do it only with vet like pip. If t3 units get a 20% dps nerf, exps should get just the same.

This would mean current balance between t3 and t4 is perfect. But there was a complain that t3 units became too strong compared to experimentals after they became buildable in high numbers. Veterancy was buffed for t4 experimentals to compensate, and it globally worked. I don't mean no adjustments will be required but that it does not need to be the same value (20% > 20%) and that veterancy is a wonderful way to adjust these very special units, due to the flexibility that the new vet system provides.

Additional to the possible nerfs pip mentioned (HP/DPS, speed, cost), a lot can be archived with range, and having units with big range differences are very hard to balance with using the other stats only (see aurora, applies aswell to the heavy siege bots, and limited to harbinger/othuum)

I don't like changing range for t3 heavy units for several reasons : it won't just affect t2 / t3 balance, but also gameplay between t3 / t3, t3 / SCU, t3 / ACU (with Overcharge) and t3/t4, unless the changes are minor, and in that case, it wouldn't solve the issue at hand. Besides, if big range changes are made, it will change the gameplay of the units (especially Bricks and Percivals with their longer range) and also reduce faction diversity. The analogy with aurora is very good : I for one don't want to solve the balance problem caused by auroras by changing its range to preserve faction diversity / gameplay variety (not to mention that Zep would disband the Balance team if you do that ).

And now the bomb : I don't belive a 20% dps nerf would be sufficent. For example in harbinger, it would be more arround 25-50%, maybe even more. Or similar range/hp/cost nerfs instead.

I don't agree with this bomb . For instance, if Harbingers DPS are nerfed by 40-50% (you seem to have in mind 200 DPS or so instead of 375), Obsidians will be a better deal without having to go t3 land factory. 2 Obsidians = 720 mass, 5500 HP, 240 DPS and above all : available at t2 .
So such a big DPS nerf will indeed lengthen the t2 phase, but I fear it would propaply end up in a situation like Cybran t2 navy : long time at t2 to use very good Destroyers before thinking about teching up to t3, removing all incentive to fast tech, which I find to be a risky but interesting possibility to have.

For me, 20% DPS nerf is a good testing value to start with, maybe it seems too small nerf for you, but for me it's actually pretty big already!
I hope we can have soon the opinions of Crazed, GalacticFear and Brainfart about this topic.

[Zock]

This would mean current balance between t3 and t4 is perfect. But there was a complain that t3 units became too strong compared to experimentals after they became buildable in high numbers. Veterancy was buffed for t4 experimentals to compensate, and it globally worked. I don't mean no adjustments will be required but that it does not need to be the same value (20% > 20%) and that veterancy is a wonderful way to adjust these very special units, due to the flexibility that the new vet system provides.

There were also complains that t4 is still too good, and most teamgames are no big t3 fights with exps on top, but exp spam with a few t3, as before engymod. And from my observations, that is quite true. This would mean exps need at least the same nerf, if not more. Doing less would increase this problem instead of solve it. But its not directly relevant to t2/t3, we can discuss that one later. Let's focus on t3 first.

I don't like changing range for t3 heavy units for several reasons : it won't just affect t2 / t3 balance, but also gameplay between t3 / t3, t3 / SCU, t3 / ACU (with Overcharge) and t3/t4, unless the changes are minor, and in that case, it wouldn't solve the issue at hand. Besides, if big range changes are made, it will change the gameplay of the units (especially Bricks and Percivals with their longer range) and also reduce faction diversity. The analogy with aurora is very good : I for one don't want to solve the balance problem caused by auroras by changing its range to preserve faction diversity / gameplay variety (not to mention that Zep would disband the Balance team if you do that ).

Yes i agree, messing with range can easy change inner t3 balance and others. The aurora is a very light unit, and extremly vulnuable in close combat or to air, while percy/brick are very heavy units. I disagree to how the big range of theese units (or other units) add to faction deversity, unless all units would get the same range (what i wouldn't want to do). But like it said, it doesn't mean we have to change the range, but i wouldn't want to not consider it at least, and aknowledge that range is propably the biggest factor in why t3 is so much better then t2.

I.e. the range of some t3 units compared to t2 units, are like t2 rocketbot range compared to t1 range. But rocketbots still lose to t1 in close combat. The current t3 units are to t2 what a obsidian with rocketbot range would do to t1.

I don't agree with this bomb . For instance, if Harbingers DPS are nerfed by 40-50% (you seem to have in mind 200 DPS or so instead of 375), Obsidians will be a better deal without having to go t3 land factory. 2 Obsidians = 720 mass, 5500 HP, 240 DPS and above all : available at t2 .
So such a big DPS nerf will indeed lengthen the t2 phase, but I fear it would propaply end up in a situation like Cybran t2 navy : long time at t2 to use very good Destroyers before thinking about teching up to t3, removing all incentive to fast tech, which I find to be a risky but interesting possibility to have.

This values do look good to me. Because a harbinger would still rape (rape, not just beat) 2 obsidians, with range & speed. Like with t1 to t2, t1 are better in pure values, but in the game, due to range mainly, and sometimes speed, t2 is still stronger (and they only beat them, not rape, like harbie still would). Compersation harb to pillar and obsi to percy would be better though. Or if the harbinger had the same range and speed as obsi (not that i want it), this vlaues would be terrible weak of course. But it doesn't.

Due to range & speed, the harbinger might STILL be a bit too strong, but it would be a good starting point for me

I agree 20% is a extremly big nerf already. But the gap between t2 and t3 is even bigger.

[pip]

A quick word about Experimentals.
Before the current situation where people think that experimentals are still strong agaisnt t3, they thought they became rubbish in engy mod. You can check the forum for last patch, it was full of complaints. Then something happened : veterancy thresholds were reduced by 20 or so. That worked : experimentals are not felt to be rubbish anymore. It's much easier to adjust this value than DPS, cost, etc.

Besides, depending on the experimentals you look at, the situation varies. They are sometimes still a bit weak compared to t3 (Monkeylord), rather well balanced (Fatboys, hard to counter with t3, but with weaknesses to air and tml), probably Ythota too. And very / too strong against t3 : GC and Megalith.

I think a 20% DPS nerf to t3 heavy untis will make Monkeylord ok without a necessary need to adjust it much. It also won't change Fatboy because you just don't counter fatboys with t3 units normally, and if you can reach a fatboy with t3 units, it will die easily anyway, wether t3 are nerfed or not.

But nerfing GC DPS is meaningless : it's excellent against t3 units because it instantly kill 2 percies or Harbingers with it's claws on top of the laser DPS. Applying 20% DPS nerf to its laser would not change much the fact that it's a killing machine against t3 units with its claws. It's better to increase claw weapon "reload time". Though with the buff to beam weapons, the laser will certainly need some DPS adjustment anyway...

Same for Ythota : it's strong against t3 thanks to its AOE weapons more than pure DPS, so applying the same kind of nerf with the same value that is applied to t3 may not be the best way (nor required if veterancy adjustment is enough).

In any case, it's best to adjust t3 first, look at balance between t3 and t2, check it's good and then look at the balance between t3 and t4 before considering what to adjust for t4.

[Master_Vallex]

remember: goal and VOTE was to decrease the gap t2-t3, not rebalance t3
make it simple: all t3 and t4 (land) HP, Cost, DPS and BT decrease by 20%, aswell as the t3 land upgrade
defense will still face the same dps/hp per mass.

anything else opens new disbalance oportunitys