Points of Imbalance.
-
@BlackYps said in Points of Imbalance.:
I can't believe I'm hearing that we're ready to classify it as trash
You are the only one here making the connection of casual=trash
You're saying that you don't want to bother dealing with its issues. Its no longer in consideration for the balance team.
That's calling it trash man.
The only thing that's trash is this balance team, assuming that what I'm hearing here is its actual policy.
"We broke those other maps when we made sloppy changes without considering the consequences? So what, fuck em", is an incredibly lazy policy to take towards the game's most popular maps.
-
the goal is to balance the game towards an expansion heavy playstyle, while keeping it from drowning in midless yolo (T1) spam and ideally at high strategic diversity, while keeping an eye on teamgames on (somewhat) competetive maps.
gap/2gap/astro/pass is not one of them. -
@HoujouSatoko said in Points of Imbalance.:
the goal is to balance the game towards an expansion heavy playstyle, while keeping it from drowning in midless yolo (T1) spam and ideally at high strategic diversity, while keeping an eye on teamgames on (somewhat) competetive maps.
gap/2gap/astro/pass is not one of them.You forgot Isis, Four Corners... a lot of other maps.
-
@HoujouSatoko said in Points of Imbalance.:
the goal is to balance the game towards an expansion heavy playstyle, while keeping it from drowning in midless yolo (T1) spam and ideally at high strategic diversity, while keeping an eye on teamgames on (somewhat) competetive maps.
gap/2gap/astro/pass is not one of them.This is a cop out. The changes being proposed are not gong to break games on an expansion heavy map.
It seems the balance team just doesn't want to bother fixing what it broke.
-
I'm sure if you keep calling the balance team trash they'll suddenly pivot and change what you want.
@biass said in Points of Imbalance.:
If you're going to just shit up another thread then I will ask for you to be banned from posting.
-
@moses_the_red. Please give the balance team more time and leeway. They are hard working (I hear :P) and very busy. I think there is room for improvement in T3 land especially after such a large change last patch. However, every large change will require small tweaks and this is unsurprising. There is nothing overly OP or UP that I have found so far. The largest discrepancies I've already commented on in the original post. While there is always room for improvement, the smaller the discrepancy, the longer it will take to make changes. The best we can do is politely ask them to consider our points and concerns then hope they take our suggestions on board.
-
This post is deleted! -
I like how during our tests I tried to explicitly point out things that I didn't want Moses to misinterpret yet he has still done it.
So to summarize the tests we have done I've concluded that:
in a straight up fight with little micro Bricks win very heavily vs ML
In a fight where player does micro his ML well but not perfectly and he also can approach only from 1 side (99% of situations in a real game) Bricks win vs ML with around 8 bricks remaining.
With near perfect ML micro and ML approaching from 1 side it is possible for the ML to win but it's really really close and it comes down to micro and pathfinding of bricks.
If ML is allowed to run circles around bricks and poke from every side and the player micro's ML well then ML wins.So from that we can see that in ~90% of situations ML looses to bricks pretty badly, when the player manages to micro near perfectly the ML draws or wins, and in the 0.1% of weird situations where ML is running circles around enemy forces it wins easily.
Few more things to consider: The micro that ML requires is basically going into range of bricks while turning and starting running away at the same time so the bricks can easily disengage and thus buy the defending player a lot of time to make more units, finish his own experimental, make pds air or w/e. So if you want to attack with ML, then ML looses 100% of the time making it an inefficient investment mass for mass.
I hope this cleared things up a bit. -
I did some more tests: spoiler T4 lose vs t3! what a surprise
Bricks vs Chicken -> Bricks win
Bricks vs GC -> Bricks win
Bricks vs Mega -> Bricks win
replay: #13098578I don' think I need to add that if I would use percivals they would crush even harder vs Chicken and GC and probably do around the same vs Mega.
Can we know finish the discussion of omg T3 was nerfed and now I am sure they get raped by T4.
I also think that it's fine leaving ML as it is since it gets countered by everything else easily compared to other T4's so allowing it to be efficient vs T3 formations given very good micro is fine by me. -
@Tagada said in Points of Imbalance.:
I did some more tests: spoiler T4 lose vs t3! what a surprise
Bricks vs Chicken -> Bricks win
Bricks vs GC -> Bricks win
Bricks vs Mega -> Bricks win
replay: #13098578I don' think I need to add that if I would use percivals they would crush even harder vs Chicken and GC and probably do around the same vs Mega.
Can we know finish the discussion of omg T3 was nerfed and now I am sure they get raped by T4.
I also think that it's fine leaving ML as it is since it gets countered by everything else easily compared to other T4's so allowing it to be efficient vs T3 formations given very good micro is fine by me.If T3 land is really in a good place, why aren't you making it?
Replay: #12924870
You make some, but you're spending more mass by far in T4, and you're probably spending more mass in T1 than T3 land as well.
In real game situations, you are yourself devoting very little of your total mass to T3 unit production - favoring T4, T3 static arty, nukes and even T1 over it on a per mass basis.
Doesn't make much sense if its in a good place does it?
-
Better players than me can explain but:
Land is Slow. So making deploying a land army in mass takes alot of time or transports
Firebases. Or more specifically A failed T3 Engagement can backfire so painfully
Map Control is Generally establish, so engaging on fronts to take proxies or expansions is harder and might take more mass than you giveAnd likely also efficient usage of BP, creating and deploying the Bricks/T3 Army takes more time/effort/etc to build than just amassing T4 Units or Arty. So even if equal mass of bricks > ML or otherwise. The relative time to make, deploy and otherwise the bricks is harder than the monkey mayhe/IDunno. Shitty 1k global
-
That was the saddest excuse for a funeral plains game I've ever witnessed.
-
@Dragun101 said in Points of Imbalance.:
Better players than me can explain but:
Land is Slow. So making deploying a land army in mass takes alot of time or transports
Firebases. Or more specifically A failed T3 Engagement can backfire so painfully
Map Control is Generally establish, so engaging on fronts to take proxies or expansions is harder and might take more mass than you giveAnd likely also efficient usage of BP, creating and deploying the Bricks/T3 Army takes more time/effort/etc to build than just amassing T4 Units or Arty. So even if equal mass of bricks > ML or otherwise. The relative time to make, deploy and otherwise the bricks is harder than the monkey mayhe/IDunno. Shitty 1k global
I'm sure your reasons are valid. Really, I am. Its a complex problem, with many independent factors contributing.
However I'm also sure that a massive 30-50% nerf to those units from 2018 exacerbated the problem immensely.
-
The relative strength of those units wouldn't really changed any of the criteria that I mentioned
-
@Dragun101 said in Points of Imbalance.:
The relative strength of those units wouldn't really changed any of the criteria that I mentioned
But the relative strength of the units would certainly make them more viable.
A slow unit that takes immense build-power to put out in force might be worth building anyway if its really strong.
We can all at least agree that weakening T3 assault units discourages their use can't we? We can find that much common ground right?
-
@Arran said in Points of Imbalance.:
@moses_the_red. Please give the balance team more time and leeway. They are hard working (I hear :P) and very busy. I think there is room for improvement in T3 land especially after such a large change last patch. However, every large change will require small tweaks and this is unsurprising. There is nothing overly OP or UP that I have found so far. The largest discrepancies I've already commented on in the original post. While there is always room for improvement, the smaller the discrepancy, the longer it will take to make changes. The best we can do is politely ask them to consider our points and concerns then hope they take our suggestions on board.
I have no idea who is or isn't balance team. No one's actually labeled here. I'm debating with whoever shows up in the thread.
I assume that FTXCommando has insight into the team that I don't though, so when he explains that its now policy to just ignore the maps that tend to get played the most... well... that is the kind of position deserving of criticism.
-
@moses_the_red said in Points of Imbalance.:
when he explains that its now policy to just ignore the maps that tend to get played the most... well... that is the kind of position deserving of criticism.always been policy
-
I don't really see how this Funeral Plain's game proves anything? We can see that instead of matching Pepsi in t3 bot spam I decided to invest more of my mass into eco and help Blodir finish his Mega since me getting 5 more percies is less important then finishing a megalith. After the fronts are drawn it's quite hard to push anywhere with only t3 land and thus in this game we could see me putting a lot of my mass into t3 units during early stages of t3 but then slowing down the production since an extra 2 percies won't change anything once you get to 10+ bots and thus it's better to invest into something with more range like Megalith. Even tho bricks win vs Megalith mass for mass an army consisting of Mega + 10 bricks is far superior then an army consisting of only bricks. Another thing is that even tho t3 is efficient mass for mass vs Experimentals it's not that great at pushing in. Same for using a single assault experimentals. In order to have an effective push you need to have a good mix of units. An assault experimental to tank and attack from further away, t3 assault units for dps once you enter close combat, support units like shields, stealth, AA.
-
You definitely could have raped with t3 in that game, I really do not understand why you just immediately skipped over the t3+t4 push stage and immediately went nuke. Even before helping Blodir you really only had 1 fac bothering to produce any units.
You had to invest in mega because Blodir went full 0 units and realized he needs to respond to GC + 15 harbs lol. This is because he went typical immediate t2 mexes and didn't even bother getting control of his plateau with a drop where he can quickly consoooooooooom like 7k mass in reclaim + get 4 extra mexes. Just like absolutely no one in this game bothered to contest anybody else, might as well as have been a sandbox.
Also wtf is this shit with mid anus reclaim taking forever to be consumed by either team and even having engies from both teams just communally taking the mass. It's like one of the defining things that determines who gets the eco lead and you guys just seem to share it between one another.
-
We share the mass like true gentlemen. Now stop whining and trash talking cause this is still probably one of the better team games that took place that month. Also I disagree with your comment about the possibility for a t3 push, I don't think it would have been a good idea, could maybe take 2 more mexes but it's not worth it probably.
Also most of these 2vs2 games are played as chill games so no wonder we sit back, eco and relax.
