Ceneraii wrote:P.S. Why do people always ignore it when you point out serious faults in their reasoning? I hate it when that happens
Lol, you are just now pointing out faults in my reasoning, and I don't plan on ignoring them. Now that you're actually addressing the point I was making I find I agree with you for the most part. I still don't like that a few seconds of micro can decide a game, but my disliking it doesn't defeat the principle. I think your opinion is biased since you are obviously very good at micro and want to keep that advantage over other people. But this isn't about micro. Plus, I hoverbomb from time to time.
Though, sometimes people don't see the faults. Perspective is everything.
Ceneraii wrote:I think the phrasing of "should a unit blablabla its counter" is very vague
(I would argue that you are ignoring that I am pointing out a serious fault in your reasoning...) This isn't really something you can dismiss. It's a core principle of the game. Balanced mass efficiency means a balanced game. If you spend 500 mass on something, there should be something else worth roughly 500 mass that can kill it (including trading mass, perhaps, for range, speed, whatever -- eg, a unit might cost less if it moves slowly, it might cost more if it has more range, or it might cost the same if it moves slowly but has more range). That's all I'm saying. It's why ilshies are so OP -- about twice as powerful as any other t2 tank -- they cost twice the mass. If something wasn't worth the mass nobody would build it, and if something was more powerful than the mass you put into it people would build that unit all the time. The phrase "A unit shouldn't be able to mass efficiently counter its counter" is one of the core principles of the game. It's why you build flak when you're worried about gunships: gunships can't mass efficiently counter flak. It's why you build inties against bombers, antinukes against nukes, etc. etc. It's cheaper to build the counter unit than it is for your opponent to build more of the unit being countered. If it wasn't, the game wouldn't work.
So what I am saying is that AWs cost the same as 120 ASF, and for AWs to be able to kill 120 ASF without dying (indeed, vetting enough to get almost full health back) means the AW violates that principle. That, in my opinion, is an exploit. Call it whatever you want (I'd rather not argue semantics), but it's taking advantage of something that probably wasn't intended to be the way it is. I really like the physics engine and I think there's a lot of cool things about it. But if we discovered that building a nuke at a certain height made it invincible to an antinuke because of [insert physics here], then despite how cool that is, I'm not sure that is something we'd choose to keep in the game (I'm not sure... depends on how cool it is
).Anyways, I partly agree with you, and I partly do not. No, we do not see people building AWs for the express purpose of getting air control. Yes, it is a complement to the physics engine, but it would continue to be so if the AW flew below the ASF (and arguably, it is another exploit in that it kills the ASF but does not damage itself. Try launching a nuke at itself...). Yes, people should get rewarded for micro, and suffer consequences for doing things like flying under bombs. But you've still failed to hit the core of the issue, which is that a unit worth 48,000 mass can kill the number of units worth 48,000 mass which are expressly designed and intended to kill it. You would think the designer of the ASF, rather than relying on his or her pilots to fly out of the way, would simply make the ASF fly a little higher. Since that would cause other balance issues, I'm suggesting the AW flies a little lower.
Whatever the resolution, thanks for spelling out your case and arguing so civilly.
