Points of Imbalance.

15 bricks crush an ML. 30 bricks crush a mega when it has nothing to retreat to. 22 bricks crush a GC. 21 bricks crush a chicken when it has micro as garbage as mine lol.

Not even sure why you say that closed games come down to T4. If I know where the T4 is coming, I can very easily stop it through mass efficient defenses against it and just keep making my eco sim. This can be point defense, arty, rambo SACUs, air. This is what happens on every canis/hilly/whatever I play that isn't decided by a brutal air crush.

This is also why T3 is so garbage on these maps. Because it's SO bad to make infinite unit spam since you are immediately made irrelevant as everyone and their mom ecos up and leaves you on your unringed t2 mexes totally marginal to the game state. To make t3 spam worthwhile you need a consistent transition between t1 -> t2 -> t3. Or at least some t1 -> t3 or t2 -> t3 aspect. If it's some closed garbage map then you skipped t1 and t2 and will more than likely skip t3 because it isn't worth the lump sum investment. Might as well as scout and abuse defender's advantage by rushing your own t4 faster than the enemy can make theirs + bring it to you. I'm already spamming hives for my quantum gateway for RAS SCUs so why make even more unneeded infrastructure?

This is not a balance problem but rather a map problem.

Actually no, it isn't even a map problem most of the time. Mostly it's just that players are pretty incompetent and can't be trusted to work as one. So you are better off just ecoing up and finding your own sieves to abuse and get ready to capitalize on anything some dude on your team manages to randomly do.

This is why 2v2s are much better to see how serious teamgames would go. You not only have easier coordination but a vast space to interact with which almost always correlates with more variability in strategy. 3v3 and 4v4 are also ok but it requires 20x20 maps pretty much.

Spin up a test FTXCommando, spin up a test and actually see how well a Monkeylord does against 15 bricks.

Takes 5 minutes.

You're guessing here and you're guessing wrong. I'm sure you can find a friend to help you test that. If you can't just message me when I'm online.

I did run a test. Unmicro'd, 10/15 bricks live.

With micro purely on the ML, I managed to kill all the bricks with a 500 hp ML left. This was because 6-8 of the bricks were walking out of range and stopped shooting.

@FtXCommando said in Points of Imbalance.:

I did run a test. Unmicro'd, 10/15 bricks live.

With micro purely on the ML, I managed to kill all the bricks with a 500 hp ML left. This was because 6-8 of the bricks were walking out of range and stopped shooting.

I think you're bad at tests Are you on now? Wanna join a test?

I think you're bad.

@FtXCommando said in Points of Imbalance.:

I think you're bad.

For anyone that wanders through here.

This is the real issue. If he ran a test he ran it badly. If you don't believe me, find a friend, and test this yourself.

How does a ML do against 15 bricks. See how you do. Really easy thing to test for yourself.

Talk is cheap.

@moses_the_red said in Points of Imbalance.:

Talk is cheap.

In that case, feel free to post the link to your testing at any time.
If you're going to just shit up another thread then I will ask for you to be banned from posting.

@Arran mate, I think you've misunderstood something here.
You're working on the assumption that every equivalent unit must have the exact same level of power. This is not how it works in pretty much any game balance ever made. Doing so would instantly force a meta wherein the faction with more options will always be at an advantage, and I'm really sick of this permanent cybran meta already.

All these minor stat changes do nothing to the game besides suit the criteria that you and you alone have created. You're again under the idea that the balance team use this similar forumla (because you noticed a couple of coincedental patterns maybe?) but this is also likely not the case. Stuff like adding 50 damage doesnt solve a problem with balance, or remove a point of frustration. I don't at all see why we should "just do it"

Stuff like the Novax and sniper meta reveals a lack of game knowledge. I don't really have the motivation to explain why that is though, moses will probbaly derail your thread with his hero complex anyway.

"With micro purely on the ML, I managed to kill all the bricks with a 500 hp ML left. This was because 6-8 of the bricks were walking out of range and stopped shooting."

funnily this is pretty much what happened in moses "test". somehow the bricks were never in any kind of real formation with 2-3 shoting at once and the monkey had infinite kiting space so it could just keep picking off flanks

@biass. Thank you for responding to my post. I was wondering if it would ever be addressed. Your point about "every unit doesn't have to be equivalent" is correct and I agree with you. However, for every advantage there must be a disadvantage to restore balance. Additionally some units have been normalised or follow a specific pattern. The Shocker: T3 Strategic Bomber is one such unit that follows a very specific pattern between the other faction's bombers. This pattern is outlined in my original post. To paraphrase you biass, you mentioned there was "no point" in adding 50 damage to The Shocker. With 50 extra damage, The Shocker would be able to kill Seraphim T3 mex in 2 passes rather than 3. This is a major change to the Aeon VS Seraphim matchup in the T3 phase. biass you must know that T3 bombers don't have the longest life expectancy as ASF's are immediately send to end their lives. One extra pass on a T3 mex, is the difference between a kill or not. I do not believe I'm being unreasonable in requesting this since the extra 50 damage would be adhering to the pattern between T3 Bombers. I also think @harzer99 made a good but brief point about The Shimmer.
Although this is not mentioned in my original post, every conclusion about a unit's balance (with one exception being The Shocker's bomb damage) is speculative to some degree. For instance, I have insufficient experience with snipers to be an authoritative figure on their proper usage. But thinking you need to a 'top player' to express a valid opinion is an appeal to authority fallacy (aka logical flaw). I ask you not to discredit people's opinions simply because they are not as good at the game as yourself.
@moses. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this topic since biass said "moses will probbaly derail your thread with his hero complex anyway."

" However, for every advantage there must be a disadvantage to restore balance. Additionally some unit have been normalised or follow a specific pattern."

No.

Balance isnt comparing units of one category vs another, since faction streghts lie in different strategis. you have to at least factor in land and air (al relevant land& air units+structures etc.) at all relevant tech levels at once. you have to compare the factions approaches to the game as a whole against another and compares straghts and weaknesses of a faction as a whole. going straight over unit stats for 1 specific role is just a rule of thumb to avoidrunning into obvious imbalances

A small incomplete list of normalised units that follow a specific pattern with differences between units of same categories that/or are governed by a discernible pattern:

• T2 Mobile Missile Launchers
• T1 Interceptors
• T1 Point Defences
• T3 Mobile Heavy Artilleries

While your post @HoujouSatoko is essentially correct, it can also be summarised as follows: "Balance is difficult and must be viewed holistically."
I look forward to your counter argument defending:

" However, for every advantage there must be a disadvantage to restore balance. Additionally some unit have been normalised or follow a specific pattern."

No.

We should probably make a role for it, but old mate @HoujouSatoko is a balance team member.
The purpose of this thread is to propose stuff to them, not to argue with them and say out whatever logical fallcy comes to mind because they're straight up not relevant in a conversation between two adults.

If you want things changed promptly, I suggest you just state what and why in a concise manner.

I second the notion that things need not be balanced to be equal. Factions are supposed to be stronger and weaker in certain stages. Making them the same will ruin the depth of the game.

what is your point even? T1 pds and inties are pretty much the same unit (also listing T1 pds itself is a massive mistake since t1 pds strenght significantly depends on T1 walls and the power of units to shoot above them).
comparing T3 arty stats is pointless without comparing factions shielding abilities aswell (for practical purposes though the decidng factor is just teamgame meta in generic 4v4+ 10x10 maps)
furthermore its pretty much pointless to compare mmls on their own (without even factoring in the direct counter the tmd, which shows just how pointless this is) since their are part of how a faction is adresses to play pd wars, so things to factor in aswell are pd+shield strenght, T1 arty push and rambo com attacks raiding abilities...

I dont even see how you put T1 pds, which have no relevant differences on one level with mmls

Ok. Let me flip this around. @HoujouSatoko, as a supposed member of the balance team, can you explain to me, why the damage of the Shocker: T3 Strategic Bomber is 3450 not 3500? I'm honestly curious to know the answer as this question was what instigated my investigation into this unit.

Wym supposed member of the balance team? Biass told you he IS a member of the balance team.
In my personal opinion the Shocker's dmg could be increased by 50 but it's really not a big deal.

exactly what tagada said. the point in balance is rather to remove imbalances or meta issues, not "fix" things where no real issues exist to beginn with. especially since the amount the balanceteam can realistically do is pretty limited (just look at the rate of balancepatches) so ppl rather use their time to focus in real issues.
the goal is to optimise the current state of balance. there is no point to fix things when there are no actual problems in real game situations

@biass said in Points of Imbalance.:

@moses_the_red said in Points of Imbalance.:

Talk is cheap.

In that case, feel free to post the link to your testing at any time.

What I'll do instead is issue a standing offer to anyone here. Come show me how well 15 bricks do against a ML.

If I were to post a replay, you'd all disregard it anyway. The only way for me to really make my point is for one or more of you to actually bother testing this.

If you see me online, and feel that 15 bricks kills a ML in real game conditions, message me and I'll set up a test. You can show me what a noob I am.

I imagine none of you will... because you all know that what I'm saying is correct. General consensus used to be 10-12 bricks to kill a ML. Nowadays its significantly more - more than 15.

Got a replay. I'm microing the Monkeylords, Tagada is microing bricks.

Might look confusing because Tagada asked that I micro his units and he micro mine. Check the discussion in the replay for details.

4 decent tests.

15 bricks versus Monkeylord -> Monkeylord wins.
20 bricks versus Monkeylord -> Bricks win with significant brick numbers left over.
16 bricks versus Monkeylord -> Monkeylord wins
On a narrow passage with little range of motion for the monkeylord vs 15 bricks -> Bricks win with something like 10 bricks remaining (check replay to be sure)

Replay ID: #13085973

I feel the test supports my position, as I'm a crap player and Tagada is... well Tagada.

Thank you Tagada for agreeing to help me test.

So all in all the units and balance is fine. And victory comes to the person who have chosen the better place and time to fight?
Seems about right lol.

@Khada_Jhin said in Points of Imbalance.:

So all in all the units and balance is fine. And victory comes to the person who have chosen the better place and time to fight?
Seems about right lol.

Originally, it was 10-12 bricks to kill a Monkeylord.

By making the Monkeylord mass efficient versus bricks, the balance team has severely degraded the usefulness of large T3 land formations. I posted about this in this thread, which does a decent job of explaining the argument.

https://forum.faforever.com/topic/171/i-think-the-relationship-between-t3-land-and-experimentals-should-be-re-examined/5

For assault experimentals to not step on the role of T3 land, they have to be something other than "powerful mass efficient land unit". Originally they were sucker punch units, and T3 land always had a role because it was able to reliably kill assault experimentals in a mass efficient way.

When you look at the disadvantages of amassing significant bricks, it becomes clear that they should be more mass efficient than assault experimentals. Assault experimentals require next to no infrastructure. No extra factories, They're easy to produce.

Pushing out bricks requires a significant investment in factories. The HQ system has mitigated this to a large extent, but it still requires a ton of infrastructure to pump mass into T3 units at the same rate that you can dump mass into an assault experimental.

And I don't want to even change that, I want T3 land to have its own advantage, in mass efficiency.

In terms of mass efficiency, bricks should kill T4 with a significant bonus. That makes up for the production investment in Bricks.

I feel like this system was more or less working well at launch, and it was changed via the T3 nerf (which I think made sense as T2 was pretty damn irrelevant).

There are a couple of ways to fix this as I see it:

• SACUs enhancing the functionality of T3 formations sounds great provided that the buffs are large enough to actually give T3 formations decent mass efficiency versus assault experimentals. Keep in mind that in addition to T3 production, you have to invest in SACU production... it will have to be a significant buff to T3.

• Moderate nerfs to assault experimentals across the board, perhaps with corresponding build time buffs.

I don't really care how this is handled, and I trust the balance team to figure out the details. I just think it should be addressed.

If people remember one thing about anything I'm saying in all these posts on this topic, I hope its this: Assault Experimentals must serve a role that is distinct from the role of T3 land formations. Originally they were sucker punch units, I think that's a good tried and true role for them, but try not to be myopic about it. Whatever they are in the future, I think they need to be further distinguished from T3 units because its hurting unit diversity in some situations.