Balancing for 1v1 vs Teamgames

[JaggedAppliance]

I'm sure both are considered when making balance changes but I'm wondering where the line is drawn. Ultimately I believe the game has to be balanced for 1v1 but does this compromise teamgames? Can we achieve a balance that makes for the best 1v1 games and the best teamgames? How does the balance team consider changes that affect these two areas of faf differently?

[keyser]

balancing 1v1 and team game at the same is really hard. Some weapon use in team game are called op, but aren't be in 1v1. (tml, nuke, first bomber....) same way around, most of team game map are turtle like, which make raid unit weak, when they are strong in 1v1.

[ZLO_RD]

main difference there is that in team game you have more commanders, so for both teams it is harder to raid and attack, especially with t2 t3 (cause of overcharge)

there is other difference witch we have to deal with, maps for teamgames are often different to 1v1 maps.
in 1v1 game you fight to get empty bases on the map, in team game all bases will be taken and there will be almost nothing to fight for.
Everyone wants to play on big map, but not to big so there will be no lag, and they want to tech quick and build t3 t4 stuff, so they need alot of mexes and space to build their base, so we endup with 10 km map with 8-10 spots with 8 mexes each, and there is basicly no more space left for expansions that players should fight for...

also often happen that bases are spread out from beginning, so from the start there are ~10 bases on the map... so in case of TML each base needs its own defence, same against nukes, air, t3 static arty, satelites and teleport...

[nine2]

jagged, what example were you thinking of that is balanced one way but not the other?

[keyser]

Well for exemple it s way easier to micro unitbin team game because you usually have 1 front.
In 1v1 you can have battle on multiple spot, so high micro reward unit gonna lose of their effectiveness because you can t micro them as much as you could/should.
Ie : sACU aren t that op in 1v1, but incredibly strong in team game

[JaggedAppliance]

I didn't have anything in particular in mind but there are several examples. ACU tml was op in teamgames only, it saw very little use in 1v1s. As keyser said scus were changed because of their use in teamgames, they were a rarity in 1v1(although I do remember keyser getting wrecked by rambos by someone else in this thread ). Hover tanks were changed because of seton's(Vee said this yesterday).

[keyser]

Not only setons, they are stronk on roanoke too for exemple. (1v1)
That s why i said that scu weren t total shit op in 1v1, but they are too powerfull imo on some map. Yes zlo did rape me once with a uef scu spam on vya with his smurf.

[JaggedAppliance]

Yeah, hover is(was?) strong in some 1v1 maps, just saying that vee said it was changed for seton's which I found interesting.

[Korbah]

Fundamentally understanding the implications of 1v1 vs team battles is about getting to grips with the temporal and scalar differences that are emergent within both style of game. Maps are and additional factor as other have suggested.

When this is appreciated the fact that you can make significant changes to units that impacts heavily on team games with little 1v1 implications becomes a lot more intuitive.

Inherent gameplay quality will affect both - albeit to differing degrees. An effort should always be made to ensure the integrity of the core metagame is of a high quality as this will have critical implications. It is this which should be the initial focus of any gameplay/balancing team as weaknesses in the design of core gameplay mechanics and core units will have overarching negative consequences.

[Ceneraii]

Completely offtopic but Korbah... You basically said making changes causes changes? In alooooot of words xD Thought it was quite funny.