Points of Imbalance.

@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: #13098578

I 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 give

And 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 give

And 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.

@moses_the_red said in Points of Imbalance.:

If T3 land is really in a good place, why aren't you making it?

Replay: #12924870

Haha! I handpicked this 1 replay where they barely made any t3. Surely there aren't any different replays proving the opposite!

I didnt read like any of this thread so dunno if this is wildly offtopic but i just wanna say that ever since loya nerf years ago I only think of t3 land as a defensive tool because any attack is super risky (leaving absurd amount of mass reclaim), slow (enemy has time to react and defenders advantage is supermassive) and has very low potential benefit (usually u are just killing t1 or maybe t2 mex when enemy has 90% of eco deep in their base in t3 mex). Like sure sometimes u can find a good play (mostly by dropping) but 90% of the time if u are on the enemy side of the map with t3 ur just donating mass. It may be ironic for me to say this but T3 phase in general is a massive snoozefest. I dont think u should blame players from making it so either, we are simply picking the highest win % strategy in our view. Btw navy is a lot more fun and is in a much better spot on all stages.

@TheWheelie said in Points of Imbalance.:

  @moses_the_red said in Points of Imbalance.:

If T3 land is really in a good place, why aren't you making it?
Replay: #12924870

Haha! I handpicked this 1 replay where they barely made any t3. Surely there aren't any different replays proving the opposite!

Dude, I looked through Tagada's games, and ignored anything on Setons until I found a game on a land map that went beyond 45 minutes.

That's how I found the replay.

The problem shows itself in pretty much every game, regardless of level on any map where there isn't a massive area to defend. You don't have to look hard. See the cast of ThomasHiatt versus JaggedAppliance I linked above. The problem is in that game too.

I am far too lazy to watch enough games to hand pick one.

@Blodir said in Points of Imbalance.:

I didnt read like any of this thread so dunno if this is wildly offtopic but i just wanna say that ever since loya nerf years ago I only think of t3 land as a defensive tool because any attack is super risky (leaving absurd amount of mass reclaim), slow (enemy has time to react and defenders advantage is supermassive) and has very low potential benefit (usually u are just killing t1 or maybe t2 mex when enemy has 90% of eco deep in their base in t3 mex). Like sure sometimes u can find a good play (mostly by dropping) but 90% of the time if u are on the enemy side of the map with t3 ur just donating mass. It may be ironic for me to say this but T3 phase in general is a massive snoozefest. I dont think u should blame players from making it so either, we are simply picking the highest win % strategy in our view. Btw navy is a lot more fun and is in a much better spot on all stages.

Thank you for your input. I tend to agree.

There's a reason people don't make a ton of T3 land anymore... and its that its in a bad place.

I think its best fixed with T4 nerfs, but maybe I'm wrong on that. Most important thing is that the problem is identified as a problem and hopefully addressed.

T4 nerf isn't what Blodir is talking about. Blodir's point goes towards more of a suggestion about adjusting reclaim % as unit tech increases or w/e.

@FtXCommando said in Points of Imbalance.:

T4 nerf isn't what Blodir is talking about. Blodir's point goes towards more of a suggestion about adjusting reclaim % as unit tech increases or w/e.

That's the same issue with T4 though. You lose no less mass if you send an assault experimental.

And I'm not saying reclaim % shouldn't be adjusted, what I'm saying is that T3 land does not have the utility it once had, and the problem started back at the T3 nerf. I understand the purpose of that in relation to T2, but think either the nerfs were too steep, or that T4 needs a corresponding nerf as well.

As things are, people are putting up 2 T3 factories, 20 T1 factories, and shoving their mass into T4s, nukes and arties. It doesn't have to be that way.

To add to this discussion, here's an old Zlo game.

People really did used to invest in T3 land production.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPgWUipqAak

EDIT: Nevermind, that video is older than I thought lol.

The problem Blodir mentioned is as old as time in teamgames.

@FtXCommando said in Points of Imbalance.:

The problem Blodir mentioned is as old as time in teamgames.

From Blodir:

i just wanna say that ever since loya nerf years ago I only think of t3 land as a defensive tool because any attack is super risky

I mean.... it sounds to me like he's also referencing T3 unit nerfs.