Can we get cheaper tech 2?

[keyser]

Why making T3 weaker is a better choice than making T3 HQ cost more for several reason :

1st : T3 is far better than T2 (in comparison to T1/T2 transition) so nerfing T3 will reduce the gap. Allowing T2 to not be useless for T3 unit.

2nd : nerfing T3 will as nerfing T3 HQ cost make the rush of T3 unit less interesting (OP), but in comparison to nerfing T3 HQ, it won't remove the opportunity to rush T3 for those that still want to use this strategy

3rd : we can at the same time balance the different T3 unit between each other, making othuums and TITAN more useful than before (at least in T3 fight). And this will address to some other issue like percy being too good vs harbi in big army. Or harbi crushing loya/titan. /!\ this doesn't remove the faction diversity /!\

[SpoCk0nd0pe]

Why is it that t2 gets a delay but t3 gets a nerf?

Maybe the balance against ACUs is the reason here. ACUs are generally seen as a threat to t2 while t3 is more of a threat to the ACUs.

[moonbearonmeth]

It's like someone telling me the bible is true and right for everything it says because it's been that way for 100s of years. Just because something has been "around for a long time" does not mean it cannot be rejected.

Except you're the one pushing for the continuation of the idea that "has been around for a long time".

[Morax]

But it's the old way that is no longer as of 2 years no....

Okay, I got nothing on that moonbear. You are right in that I want to change back to the old ways.

Whelp, t2 rush is something I miss dearly and it seems every balance patch takes more and more things I like away.

Keyser and I had a discussion that resulted in me being okay with things. Still need to play it more but I agree as of right now with his direction.

[Steel_Panther]

Thanks for answering my question Keyser. The first reason makes sense, though I can see that the higher efficiency of higher tier units should be proportional to the cost of the tech upgrade, and so increasing the cost of the t3 hq would also justify the strength differential. I can understand how just making them closer might be better because it would otherwise make the upgrade too risky to get in a lot of circumstances. It just seemed to me that the current cost is really very low. According to the unit database the t3 hq is 4440 mass, (roughly 3.5 t3 bricks or percies), but the additional cost of upgrading from a t2 hq is only 3500 mass, roughly 2.7 bricks or percies (or 7.3 loyalists). Even increasing the cost by 2500 mass, means they have will have two less bricks (or 5 less loyals). It doesn't seem like a big game changer to me to go from say, a t3 army of 5 percies down to 3, even with a proportionally large increase in the tech upgrade cost.

Basically, I would think that making a tech upgrade should be at least a somewhat risky choice unless you already have quite a bit of the current tech level. Currently there is basically no risk to skipping t2 altogether. Nerfing t3 I think would do nothing to change the risk of skipping t2, but just make the advantage to t3 smaller. If you could survive without any t2 units before (a guncom? how surprising!), you'll still be able to survive until your weaker t3 comes out, so I wouldn't think people will stop skipping t2 very much anyway. Are people testing it actually finding it a lot more advantageous to build t2 now?

Essentially, increasing the t3 hq cost makes t2 units just as (in)effective vs t3, but at least gives them a time period to be effective.

Nerfing t3 units might make t2 units more viable in a fight, but if t3 is still MOST efficient, I could see people skipping t2 just as often as they were before, since you never really NEED the t2 units. Your second point is accurate; t3 rush will still be viable, and for that reason I think t2 will still be ignored.

Basically, I could see some combination of a small nerf (or balance fix for titans and othuums) to t3 units, PLUS an increase in the hq cost as optimal; it doesn't have to be just one or the other.

[FtXCommando]

Balance patch basically fixed titan by making it like loya and othuum by making it like harb. Gotta fix brick and make it kinda like percy as well otherwise UEF is ridiculously OP. That's how you end up rebalancing all of T3 when you try to fix a few units.

*Obviously there are still differences between the units in the t3 rebalance, but the differences are way more subtle than they currently are.*

[JaggedAppliance]

This is really off topic now but tbh I'm not arsed creating new threads and moving posts when there's basically one active thread at any time in the balance forum.

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.

Second, alterations have already been made to the T3 HQ. Its buildtime was increased from 9400 → 11000. 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. Obviously these did essentially nothing to stop T3 rushing from being a favourite and powerful strategy of many players on a large number of maps.

We are not completely ruling out alterations to the T3 HQ, however we are sure that simply changing the T3 HQ will not have the desired effects, so we are committed to making changes to the T3 units. The fundamental problem in our eyes is that T3 units are too strong vs T2, so we will attempt to address this first. We may make subsequent alterations to the HQ but we are focused on the units the themselves atm and it is too early to say whether HQ changes will be necessary. 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.

Balance patch basically fixed titan by making it like loya and othuum by making it like harb. Gotta fix brick and make it kinda like percy as well otherwise UEF is ridiculously OP. That's how you end up rebalancing all of T3 when you try to fix a few units.

*Obviously there are still differences between the units in the t3 rebalance, but the differences are way more subtle than they currently are.*

We didn't begin by aiming to fix the Othuum and Titan and then end up rebalancing every unit, we intended to rebalance T3 land units and attempt to "fix" those units in the process. Also shitposts really lose their edge when you put a disclaimer at the end.

Thanks for answering my question Keyser. The first reason makes sense, though I can see that the higher efficiency of higher tier units should be proportional to the cost of the tech upgrade, and so increasing the cost of the t3 hq would also justify the strength differential. I can understand how just making them closer might be better because it would otherwise make the upgrade too risky to get in a lot of circumstances. It just seemed to me that the current cost is really very low. According to the unit database the t3 hq is 4440 mass, (roughly 3.5 t3 bricks or percies), but the additional cost of upgrading from a t2 hq is only 3500 mass, roughly 2.7 bricks or percies (or 7.3 loyalists). Even increasing the cost by 2500 mass, means they have will have two less bricks (or 5 less loyals). It doesn't seem like a big game changer to me to go from say, a t3 army of 5 percies down to 3, even with a proportionally large increase in the tech upgrade cost.

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.

When we go into beta we will have a detailed post about all the changes and the reasoning behind them but right now we are still in alpha so things are subject to drastic change. Also props to the balance team for really stepping up recently and getting a lot of work done.

[Steel_Panther]

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.

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.

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.

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.)

Also props to the balance team for really stepping up recently and getting a lot of work done.

Very much appreciated!