JaggedAppliance wrote:
So about balancing using the cost of HQs vs rebalancing units, I'll first say that taking one approach for T2 HQs does not mean that the same approach must be used for T3 HQs. The problems are separate, there is no logical reason that because in the past we increased the cost of T2 HQs to alter the balance between T1 and T2, that we must now take the same approach when altering T2 vs T3.
I agree. The cost of the t2 hq is relevent only for the t1 vs t2 decision.
JaggedAppliance wrote:
Given that we find the problem to be the effectiveness of T3 tanks vs T2 tanks basically, altering the HQ is an imprecise way of dealing with this because it will affect the cost of getting T3 mobile arty to defeat ravagers, the cost of T3 engies for SAM launchers, or T3 Mobile anti-air. It's a blunt instrument.
Very good point. UEF t3 com would get a lot more advantageous if t3 mobile arty take a long time to get, because t2 static arty is a pretty poor alternative. For sams, I could see there being more of an advantage to getting a t3 com, which has fallen out of favor quite a bit since the hp and bp nerf quite a while back, but that may not be preferred. I would also add that I think the problem is not purely t3 tanks vs t2 tanks, but also the interaction with how gun coms can be used vs t2 as well. It really takes a lot of t2 to pose a threat to them, and I'm not sure you'll ever really see that if t3 is pretty easy to get and still a more efficient choice.
JaggedAppliance wrote:
It's better to think of the HQ cost in terms of T2 units rather than T3 because you make the T3 HQ when you can afford it and you won't lose too much in the process of upgrading. Or you upgrade it because you saw your opponent has T3 land and you have to stop whatever you're doing and instantly start making a T3 HQ because you will lose if you don't. That number of T3 units in the early T3 stage can/should be game winning btw, the difference is not as small as you seem to think.
Well you can use either to measure the cost. I think using t3 is more applicable because...t2 units aren't built anyway. If the cost of a t3 hq upgrade is only 3.5k mass, how many people would rather get 12 rhinos? Or you could say the hq, plus 3 bricks (7340 mass), vs 24 rhinos (or just keep adding one brick vs 4.3 extra rhinos to the equation). In a lot of team games, t2 units don't really give you anything. They usually just give your opposing gun com extra vet! I agree that in a battle without guncom acus 2 or 3 extra t3 tanks can be game winning, but in a lot of situations it might be just a single overcharge. At least for a lot of team games, the latter seems more likely to me. So, on the plus side for making t3 units cheaper and weaker, it would reduce how pivotal a single overcharge could be in the early t3 stage.
JaggedAppliance wrote:
Also when the T2 HQ cost was increased it also increased the total cost of getting to T3 because ofc you must make a T2 HQ to get T3 HQ.
Not relevant when you make the decision whether to build t2 units or skip straight to t3, because only the marginal costs are relevant. It is the sunk cost fallacy to look at what you have already invested (t2 hq cost). (The total cost is only relevant when an hq is sniped.)
JaggedAppliance wrote:
Also props to the balance team for really stepping up recently and getting a lot of work done.
Very much appreciated!Statistics: Posted by Steel_Panther — 26 Nov 2017, 17:02
]]>
