Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Balancing idea

2016-05-23T13:33:52+02:00

Um ZiniZini wrote:
Yes T1 is more cost efficient on paper, in the real game try being more "cost efficient" with ur xxxxx amount of T1 units fighting experimental with the horde of T1's terrible pathfinding. same with mass to mass if u have T2/T3 units of same mass vs experimental of same mass, on paper the horde wins but in reality..... the pathfinding of the horde is pathetic and they get picked off quite easily by the experimental, if the pathfinding was good for lots of units I would agree, but its not so.

The effectiveness of a particular unit is entirely dependant on whether you are using it for it's intended purpose. If you send a T1 horde against it's equivalent in a T4 unit, they will not be effective. But if your army is trying to take out 20 undefended mexes spread over a 40 x 40 km map the T1 horde will be decidedly more effective than a T4. Because, it moves faster, can be in many places at once (and most importantly) is expendable.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 23 May 2016, 13:33

Re: Balancing idea

2016-05-22T21:40:41+02:00

MrSprengmeister wrote:
In my opinion this is pointless because the game is already pretty well balanced.

The most cost efficient Units are T1. The least cost efficient are T4.
For example If you invest the same amount of mass into Percivals or Bricks, they will win over any direct fire T4 such as Cickens, Monkeylord and so on.

Yes T1 is more cost efficient on paper, in the real game try being more "cost efficient" with ur xxxxx amount of T1 units fighting experimental with the horde of T1's terrible pathfinding. same with mass to mass if u have T2/T3 units of same mass vs experimental of same mass, on paper the horde wins but in reality..... the pathfinding of the horde is pathetic and they get picked off quite easily by the experimental, if the pathfinding was good for lots of units I would agree, but its not so.

Statistics: Posted by Um ZiniZini — 22 May 2016, 21:40

Re: Balancing idea

2016-05-06T13:08:51+02:00

biass wrote:
i dunno who you play but people defend their mexes...

no i do not agree because you are taxed by upgrading the tech already

If you don't agree with the OP's proposition (which is to alter balance so that T1 is useful in late game) then why are you arguing with me? What I am try to say is that T1 is comparatively useless, but, can sometimes be useful for getting vision on an area, keeping tabs on your opponent, and probing their defences for weak points.

I'm not saying that you should be using a lot of T1. I'm just saying that it has some minor role to play. If you actually mean to overcome a known defensive position, then yes, I'd say bring an appropriate sized force. But if you don't know what is there. You send a small group of T1 to see what is there. Sending the T3 bot, without backup, on a suicide mission, could lead to even greater loss for no gain. With a small T1 group there is little vet to be given away, and it costs you hardly anything. Yet, by taking that risk you stand to reap a huge bonus if that T1 runs into an undefended position, or a bunch of engineers on a reclaim mission.

I'm not saying to build so many T1 that you have path finding issues. I'm not saying to integrate T1 into a T3 army (except in specific circumstances). I'm not saying to throw so many T1 at enemy that they gain any significant veterancy gain. I'm not saying to send T1 against positions which are known to be well defended with superior force... Fact of the matter is that at least in 1000 to 1400 ranked games, there is usually some form of T1 buzzing around and doing stuff. Even when there is T3 and T4. I think what I'm saying is tactically sound, and I'm rather bewildered as to why you would persist in this argument when your so obviously wrong.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 06 May 2016, 13:08

Re: Balancing idea

2016-05-06T03:54:42+02:00

It is easier to vet on T1. t3 kills those easily and vets up. This is why T1 becomes unwanted - because there are stronger units in play that are
1) harder to kill
2) they concentrate power of many in one so more of those tough units must be killed to vet.
That system of veterancy may not be too good but it makes lower tech obsolete as the game progresses which is as it should be.

Statistics: Posted by Lieutenant Lich — 06 May 2016, 03:54

Re: Balancing idea

2016-05-05T18:13:29+02:00

If you have t1 at min 20:

Ctrlk
Reclime
Put into t3 mexes or t3 units
Win game because you have more t3 units

Statistics: Posted by TheKoopa — 05 May 2016, 18:13

Re: Balancing idea

2016-05-05T17:42:15+02:00

Hawkei wrote:
biass wrote:players typically place pd and also have engineers to reclaim what dies on suicide missions
i rather destroy and then get out then give him mass for essentially nothing

If they have a PD... then this is obviously not an appropriate target for a raid. I'm talking about throwing T1 into undefended areas of distributed mex. Or where there is likely to be engineers on reclaim missions. If by doing this you force the build of a PD, then this is a win for you. If you know they have the PD, then you don't send your T1 there... I am assuming a minimum level of intelligence is used when deciding where to send raiders.

Anyway, my line of argument was in response to this post by the OP:

Hey folks,

noticing that in longer games a lot of units just dont get built any more, primarily because their higher tier pendants are more cost-efficient, i would like to propose a very rough idea on how to counterbalance this.

It is quite simple: Tax high tier units. Make a GC or ML or Chicken cost just a few mass-points per tick. So if you really need to pump out that unit, ok, it will give you an immediate advantage. But building experimentals (e. g.) exclusively as a standing army will come at a cost. You could apply the same logic to e. g. T3 point-defense and the sort. And tax t3-fighters. Currently everybody in huge games only rushes to get stupidly huge numbers of them quickly. Well, you want to do that, then this will permanently cost you. Or use t2-fighers/bombers.
...

So, by your line of argument. I am assuming that you are in agreement with the OP that just such a system should be implemented?

i dunno who you play but people defend their mexes...

no i do not agree because you are taxed by upgrading the tech already

Statistics: Posted by biass — 05 May 2016, 17:42

Re: Balancing idea

2016-05-05T16:39:43+02:00

biass wrote:
players typically place pd and also have engineers to reclaim what dies on suicide missions
i rather destroy and then get out then give him mass for essentially nothing

If they have a PD... then this is obviously not an appropriate target for a raid. I'm talking about throwing T1 into undefended areas of distributed mex. Or where there is likely to be engineers on reclaim missions. If by doing this you force the build of a PD, then this is a win for you. If you know they have the PD, then you don't send your T1 there... I am assuming a minimum level of intelligence is used when deciding where to send raiders.

Anyway, my line of argument was in response to this post by the OP:

Hey folks,

noticing that in longer games a lot of units just dont get built any more, primarily because their higher tier pendants are more cost-efficient, i would like to propose a very rough idea on how to counterbalance this.

It is quite simple: Tax high tier units. Make a GC or ML or Chicken cost just a few mass-points per tick. So if you really need to pump out that unit, ok, it will give you an immediate advantage. But building experimentals (e. g.) exclusively as a standing army will come at a cost. You could apply the same logic to e. g. T3 point-defense and the sort. And tax t3-fighters. Currently everybody in huge games only rushes to get stupidly huge numbers of them quickly. Well, you want to do that, then this will permanently cost you. Or use t2-fighers/bombers.
...

So, by your line of argument. I am assuming that you are in agreement with the OP that just such a system should be implemented?

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 05 May 2016, 16:39

Re: Balancing idea

2016-05-05T16:23:52+02:00

Hawkei wrote:
biass wrote:eh i mean i rather raid with a loyalist t3 unit then a pile of useless leftover spam
Why not use both? Mantis would keep pace, give extra vision and screen for enemy. They might show you where to put your loyalist... But back to my original point. The relative uselessness of T1 is precisely what makes it good for suicide missions.

players typically place pd and also have engineers to reclaim what dies on suicide missions
i rather destroy and then get out then give him mass for essentially nothing

Statistics: Posted by biass — 05 May 2016, 16:23

Re: Balancing idea

2016-05-05T16:21:54+02:00

biass wrote:
eh i mean i rather raid with a loyalist t3 unit then a pile of useless leftover spam

Why not use both? Mantis would keep pace, give extra vision and screen for enemy. They might show you where to put your loyalist... But back to my original point. The relative uselessness of T1 is precisely what makes it good for suicide missions.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 05 May 2016, 16:21

Re: Balancing idea

2016-05-05T16:18:28+02:00

eh i mean i rather raid with a loyalist t3 unit then a pile of useless leftover spam

Statistics: Posted by biass — 05 May 2016, 16:18

Re: Balancing idea

2016-05-05T16:19:24+02:00

Never has a player been more aptly named.... You have COMPLETELY misunderstood what I am trying to say...

1. I'm not advocating the spamming of T1 in T3 phase
2. I'm not saying T1 units should go toe to toe with T3
3. I'm not saying that you should neglect Tech.

Now I may not be as highly ranked a player. But IMLO the concentration of force, and distribution of units to achieve map control are competing objectives. If you're too spread out you will get steamrolled. If you are clustered in formation you will loose map control... Basically, the use of T1 at this stage of the game is meant to do a few things...

1. It can be used to learn the enemy disposition and gain the advantage with manoeuvre of your PRIMARY FIGHTING FORCE.
2. It can punish a player who as a concentrated force of units. Killing outlying eco WITHOUT RISKING YOUR PRIMARY FIGHTING FORCE.
3. It can force an equally matched opponent to split his army up to deal with raiders, and giving you a numerical advantage when you attack with your PRIMARY FIGHTING FORCE.

Now read PRIMARY FIGHTING FORCE = T3 and T4. I am not saying you should T1 spam... I am saying you can make intelligent use of small and inconsequential numbers of T1 units, to generally harass, gain intel, distract, do damage, and otherwise modify the enemies behaviours, so as to create a favourable situation for your T3 army... I'm not saying to put T1 up against T3 - I'm saying to put T1 units where he doesn't have anything.... Seriously, why don't you understand?

Now it may be that a Loyalist, or Titan is simply better for raiding. The problem is however that it's higher cost means you need to look after it. You're not going to be sending Loyalists on suicide missions, just to keep tabs on the enemy are you? I'm not saying to have significant spam of T1. I'm saying that sometimes I'll have an unassisted T1 land fac putting units out to a separate rally point. Every know and then I might grab say 5 or 6 of those units and give them a suicide mission into an area I think is not well defended... If they do damage, well great, if they get splatted, no big deal. Nothing is going to get veterancy off of 5 or 6 Mantis, and if I loose them, well I haven't lost anything. If I have successfully attacked into an area, but there is some mopping up to do, I'll grab a few T1, or pull the remaining T1 out of my army and give them mop-up detail. Allowing my tech units to stay together in a cohesive fighting force... It doesn't happen every game, but, this is more down to my lack of attention. Other times the map doesn't lend itself to these plays.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 05 May 2016, 16:02

Re: Balancing idea

2016-05-05T12:33:46+02:00

im finding this incredibly amusing.

its actually considered a mistake to have lower tech units on the field at a certain point.

just look at the top ladder strat atm (play cybran; rush a t3 unit; win game)
and the one before that one was invented/popular (play aeon; rush a t3 unit; win game)

whats worth noting here is that fast t3 is preferred over bricks, this is because you can kill anything t1/2 and then their mexes, and run away from anything else.
bricks are cool too, but their job is less defending raids and more walking into enemy base. the most efficient use of t3 when enemy has t1 would be to drop 2-3 bricks and kill his base, even if its at the cost of some mexes.

the only scenario i would consider building t1 in is if i am man_of_action and its 100% zthuee spam vs percivals, at which point the other guy is just unsure what to do xD
(answer: build t2 pd + walls of all things)

in short, the reason everyone disagrees with you, is because we are using experience and results from sandboxes to tell you what will actually happen in game. you are just theorizing, based on i dont even know what. put simply, the things you say simply do not happen in real life. there is no other way to put it.

you clearly did not take into account the following (or at least its taken into account incorrectly):
-the increased buildtime of t1 for the same unit of mass (or lower drain, same thing)
-pathfinding; cant stress this enough, this includes rolloff time from facs, getting stuck in large volumes of t1, lower mass concentration, ect.
-travel time. this is very important. you can never assume a battle to be x vs y, because of constant reinforcements. those 3 bricks will become 4 in a short while and it only gets worse from there. possibly in the time it takes your mantis to move into position.
-other units. this should have been the most obvious one. if i see you going stupid t1 spam then i build walls. after that, a single brick can defend absurd amounts of spam, and it cant even run by. but lets say you arent clever enough to build walls, you would have some nice t2 untis left over from getting t2 land at some point
(or right i forgot if youre aeon you build straight to t3 because a single microed harb is undefeatable by lower tech units- more range, dps, and speed = infinite kiting)

as for mixing tech there are a couple of extra barriers:
-speed difference; sounds minor but is absolutely not. its why people dont have mixed armies too much. t1 + t3 is very different speeds and so units get in each others way, ect. this is pathfinding again.
-aoe: t3 cyb arty. so i target your t3 units and get free vet on the way? why not.

and thats just of the top of my head. but really, this is just showing what level of theory im used to working at, and real game results are always more important than that. so watch replays and explain why harb rush and loya rush are the best things ever in 1v1, and why walls + t2pd is preferred in most cases over t1 spam, and why "no t3 at min 15" is really bad play, and why "wasting mass in t1 units" is a mistake.

tldr: you are talking about what you think would happen, we are saying why it doesnt happen in real life. please use actual examples instead of theory.

but i can bet my Tokytos shoes that this post will be ignored like the rest of them, this was partially written for my own entertainment after all :/

Statistics: Posted by Exotic_Retard — 05 May 2016, 12:33

Re: Balancing idea

2016-05-05T11:00:48+02:00

biass wrote:
Spoiler: show

Here is a map of Regor IV, assume halfmap, here in pink are the places i would have to put a single brick to hold off mantis

Not only this, but having higher tech levels (assumeing i have t3 and you have t1) means i have access to better AA weapons and artillery with longer range, assuming "oh i can beat t3 by raiding mantis" is a horrible argument

What is also a bad argument is the idea of lower tech levels being "just as" efficient as higher tech, remember that to access the stronger weapons a player needs to spend a considerable amount of eco and time to tech up his factory, if your balancing idea came into play, any and all games would just be a spamfest, do we really want that?

[edit]: also good to remember that ithilis is the creator of a balance mod that will soon be featured, know the experts

Your assumption is incorrect. I was talking about the supplementary use of T1 in addition to a T3 army. I am assuming that both players have equal access to tech. With one player investing 100% in T3, and the other player investing 95% in T3 and 5% in T1. I'm suggesting, that in some situations that 5% investment in T1 can make a big difference in the game outcome.

The aim of course is avoid defences and tech units. By using mobility and speed. Now, Reg. IV highlands is not an excellent map for lending itself to the raiding playstyle, due to those chokes. Although, there is still some scope for raiding... and I accept your challenge.

You have positioned 3 Bricks as shown. So it is only fair that I have 64 Mantis to call upon. Now, the first thing I notice is that none of those mex clusters are located at the choke points. So although these are good blocking positions, there are no resources located at them. If I had 64 Mantis, here is what I would do... I would split my Mantis into three battalions of 24 Mantis. I would completely ignore the Brick in the middle, and send 1 battalion to the left, and two battalions to the right. I would use the left battalion to harass the 9 mex directly in front of the left brick. If the Brick chases me I would simply run away. If I catch the Brick out of position I would do a run-by and get behind it.

At the same time the 2nd and 3rd battalions would move to run-by the right Brick. With one battalion hugging the cliff, and the other battalion hugging the map edge. If the Brick moves to intercept one of the battalions then I will reteat the battalion which is being engaged, and the other will execute the run-by. If the Brick kites, or maintains a central firing position, I would execute a pincer move, with all 48 Mantis surrounding the Brick. I would win, and then shortly after kill the mexes behind.

So what is the result? You have one Brick equally matched on the left in a manouvering standoff. You have another Brick sitting in the middle and doing nothing. You have a 3rd Brick which is either caught out of position, with a successful run-by, or is outnumbered and dead... We are also assuming that two T3 armies are facing a standoff in the middle. So diverting any of you main army to deal with the Mantis will depleat your main army and give me a win.

[edit]: also good to remember that ithilis is the creator of a balance mod that will soon be featured, know the experts

Also, I don't engage with people on the basis of their reputation, but rather, the content of their arguments. Perhaps you should do the same.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 05 May 2016, 11:00

Re: Balancing idea

2016-05-05T09:33:52+02:00

Spoiler: show

Here is a map of Regor IV, assume halfmap, here in pink are the places i would have to put a single brick to hold off mantis

Not only this, but having higher tech levels (assumeing i have t3 and you have t1) means i have access to better AA weapons and artillery with longer range, assuming "oh i can beat t3 by raiding mantis" is a horrible argument

What is also a bad argument is the idea of lower tech levels being "just as" efficient as higher tech, remember that to access the stronger weapons a player needs to spend a considerable amount of eco and time to tech up his factory, if your balancing idea came into play, any and all games would just be a spamfest, do we really want that?

[edit]: also good to remember that ithilis is the creator of a balance mod that will soon be featured, know the experts

Statistics: Posted by biass — 05 May 2016, 09:33

Re: Balancing idea

2016-05-05T09:16:07+02:00

Ithilis_Quo wrote:
... Best will be when you try it to your own in sandbox and then please replay the reasult, here is manul:

- Brick cost same as 24mantis, try 24 mantis vs 1 brick that kite ( what is reasult?)
- now try 10 brick that kite and use range against 240 mantis, what is reasult?
- you can say brick is superior ower lower tech, ok lets go with percival against same number.
- you can also say that also factory cost somethig, so lets say that you will have 50% more t1 units, so go with 360 striker against 10 percival.

then you will see:
- that is no chance and reason go with lower tech against higer tech because:
-- higer tech is range hightly superior, they fire when lower tech cant, you can grap much much more power on smaller place
-- units movment and path finding is big problem for units with low range, because cant get on range while another one hundret other units is dieing in front. most of your t1 fore will not fire, or even never shoot. you will see it in your sandbox. So doesnt mather how cheap they are, and how many of them you have they will die rapidly fast and do nearly zero damage.

try your sanbox and post reasults

I will try the sandbox this afternoon and see how I go. But I think you're cherry picking your scenarios and not taking into account intelligent gameplay.

1. 24 Mantis vs. 1 Brick
Okay, in this scenario it does not make sense for the Brick to kite. Because, in this scenario the Mantis is the raider, and the Brick is the defender. The Mantis are not seeking to kill the Brick, all they need do is avoid it. They will pick soft target, kill eco, and move to next target. If there is Brick, they run away and attack something else... So in your scenario, 3 or 4 Mantis will be lost, the Brick will survive, and all your mexes not being defended will be lost. Only way to beat this is have a Brick guarding every single Mex cluster. So you need 5 or 6 Bricks for active defence, and that is 5 or 6 Bricks which will not be fighting with the main army.

2. 240 Mantis vs. 10 Brick
Same problem. 240 Mantis is not a raiding force. With 240 Mantis I would split them up into 20 battalions of 12 Mantis each, and attack everywhere simultaneously. Can you put 10 Bricks everywhere? If I do find a Brick, that battalion will retreat, and the others will win. With 240 Mantis, it is literally possible to have line of sight over every square inch of the map. Which tells me exactly where to put my Bricks, and shuts down any stealth play. This is something you can't do with Bricks.

3. Percival vs. T1
This is clearly a mismatch. You have picked the one T3 unit which is not capable vs. T1 - and no intelligent UEF player would engage in this contest. As UEF I would complement my T3 Percival with T2 Pillar - Which are mostly likely leftover from the T2 spamming phase.

Ithilis_Quo, you are basing combat efficiency on the assumption that the armies will engage in a standing fight. When raiding, this is not the case. The simple fact is that lighter T1 units have high mobility, and the ability to divide forces. On a mass to DPS basis (against things which don't shoot back) they do more damage. Against higher tier units they would either run, or be destroyed. The idea is to throw them against undefended enemy positions, and forget about them... If they do damage then you win. If they get destroyed, you get to see what defences the enemy has, and where his units are. So you get intel. Either way, you still win.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 05 May 2016, 09:16