What makes something OP?
What makes something Trash?
The way I see it, often theese two are the same question, two sides of the same coin, if you want. For example, I belive that T4 air is underpowered, but not because T4 is weak, but because ASFs are overpowered.
To expand on that notion, balance is (when simplified down A LOT) either an A=B direct comparision, or a rock paper scisors situation where one thing is hard counted by another, but is not overpowered because it is hard counted its self. If you break either of theese paterns you end up in a sitation in which at least one option will in every meaningful situation be an objectivly better option than another.
To go back to ASFs as an example, there are three main types of AA, Fighters, Sams/flak, and Mobile AA. In proper balance each of theese options would be roughly equally effective in the same situation or have an equal share of situatns where one is the preferd option. But that isnt the case, as ASFs are the best way to kill enemy air units. Full stop. The other two options are auxilary mesures at best.
Yes you can make a bajaillion SAMs or whatever and win air, but your gimping yourself because it would be easier to just spam ASFs.
What makes the game more interesting?
This is a hard one, and I recon is even more subjective than balance discussions. I for one enjoy long games that often get into the late t3 stage, sometimes t4. Other people prefer quick games that end with someone getting T2 rushed. Both are valid, yet swap us around and I would find the short game frustraitiong and the other guy would find the long game boring.
Does Factional Diversity really matter?
Yes. And no.
To answer this question you need to ask what the spesific game wants to achive. Some RTS games have little or no faction divericty but still play wonderfully, because they are built around the understanding that everyone will have the same units. Some RTS games have lots of faction diversity because they wanted to... well, have diversity. And even then, you need to ask if the diversity was intended to be between vastly different setups (See, Gray Goo as a perfect example) or similar setups with medium to minor differences.
I personally greatly value faciton diversity in SupCom and do wish it to be increased, but the game is by no means the type of game where each faction is truly unique and people should definitely not try to aim for that goal.
How radical do we ever get with changes?
Personally... I think that the changes made are not radical enough. No one likes haveing thier favorate stratergy changed or nerfed, their favorate unit shuffled around, but sometimes big sweeping changes are for the better, and to delay them just ends up hurting more in the long run. FAF balance does have its problems, and some of them cant be fixed with small number tweaks.
How do we even know these are truly changes, we want?
I know what I want from this game. And im fairly sure everyone else does as well.
But what we want is often not what we need. I want faction diversity to be increased a great deal, I know this for sure. But I do not know if it would actally make the game better.
Do some factions just suck in some areas?
This is all about scope. Seraphim dont have a T2 mobile shield, so their ablity to protect their land units from fire worse than the Aeon, UEFs and even Cybrans to a lesser extent. But no one cares about that because that is zooming in too close to see the bigger picture, which in this case is that the overall T2 land of the Seraphim is as good as any other faction. It 'sucks' at t2 shielding but makes up for it in other ways.
It is ok for a faction to suck in an area, or even several, as long as its overall strength is maintained.
What makes balance good (in your opinion)?
To be entirely honest, I cant really answer this. Balance at the grand scale is someone of such a rediculious complexity and intracy that any way I put it to words will sound downright insane.
A balanced game must reward player skill. But also must alow someone of lower skill to beat a higher skill person.
A balanced game must let every unit within the game to be viable. But also must force you to use spesific units.
A balanced game must alow a loseing player to win. But also must prevent a player who is loseing to win.Statistics: Posted by Elusive — 17 Jan 2020, 11:23
]]>
