Points of Imbalance.

still unrelated to the monkey vs brick issue :Kappa:

@moses_the_red
T3 still beats T4 mass for mass

Where T4 is better are

1. Exploiting veterancy
2. Micro capabilities
3. Defense from AOE/partial damage

You proved that point 2 can make difference. This is GOOD.

Someone just please make a balance mod for gap and astro so people can play with all facion hives/ ras SACUS and op t3 land. Nice side effect would be that those games are unranked then.

@HoujouSatoko said in Points of Imbalance.:

actually the most surprising notion here to me is that T3 land formations existed in pre 18 balance in teamgames. the usual thing that happened there was getting full T3 mex into exp only because they wouold build so incredibly quickly. (and there are pds + acus everywhere so what do you even want to do with those T3 units?)
for 1v1s this whole thing is a non issue

That was their niche, they were sucker punch rush units.

They were built to exploit early timings, or unexpected mass spikes due to reclaim.

They were not able to compete with T3 in terms of mass efficiency though, and so if you could get past the timings, T3 land formations would become effective counters to them.

And given the mass investment you have to put into significant T3 production, that makes sense. You can't just grab all your engies and push out 15 bricks in a minute or two.

That role is what allowed assault experimentals to exist, but not compete with T3 land. T3 land was better if you had the production to make enough of it.

And I'm speaking in general here. There are counterexamples like the Fatboy, but what I'm saying was true in general.

We traded that system for one where Experimentals take longer to build, but have little to no disadvantage in mass efficiency. That is causing Experimentals to replace the role of the T3 land formation.

im sure everyone building them because they were too lazy to mass T3/early T3 bots (non siege/snipers) being useless after going full T3 eco after building 20 tanks for the entire game makes them an "early timing", and not just a full T1 into full exp spam transition.

more like exp was the main meta and going t3 spam the nieche

@FtXCommando said in Points of Imbalance.:

  T3 land formations existed if u played UEF. Everything else was T4 spam as a response to the UEF player.

Not true.

Thinking more on this, lots of things weren't adjusted at all.

T3 land is also more vulnerable to PD of all kinds, T2 static artillery.

It was an indirect buff to ravagers, shields...

We changed T3 land by a country mile and adjusted nothing else as if nothing else might need adjusting. Its more vulnerable to everything.

I'm watching a replay from May right now between Tagada, Blodir, Nexus and Turbo on Frozen Isis. No one is making T3 units in significant numbers. No one is investing in production.

They literally finish T3 static arty before bothering to build more than 5 T3 assault units.

Its no wonder why. Its weak as hell relative to everything except T2.

It seems that at the pro level, its just not worth making AT ALL unless you have 30 mex points spread across everywhere to defend.

Is that really where we want it? Is this really the best we can do?

Replay for anyone that's interested: https://replay.faforever.com/11847829

#13058558

Just a general teamgame I found on a decent map that sees usage of all tech levels.

All 4 players you mentioned above are eco and chill dudes playing an eco and chill teamgame on an eco and chill map. Nothing you describes surprises me.

@FtXCommando said in Points of Imbalance.:

#13058558

Just a general teamgame I found on a decent map that sees usage of all tech levels.

All 4 players you mentioned above are eco and chill dudes playing an eco and chill teamgame on an eco and chill map. Nothing you describes surprises me.

So are you at the point where you're ready to throw Isis into the "Maps we don't want to bother thinking about" category?

Seems like it, I provide you an example of the issue I'm talking about on a very popular relatively well respected team map, and you're linking me an open map as a response.

Is Isis a shit map that the balance team doesn't want to have to address gameplay issues on?

I'm not contesting that they're used on maps where you have to defend 30 mass points spread across all of creation.

I think isis drastically simplifies the game and then players that have a predisposition to play deeply risk averse/are not going hard in the game leads to an even more drastic simplification yeah.

@FtXCommando said in Points of Imbalance.:

  I think isis drastically simplifies the game and then players that have a predisposition to play deeply risk averse/are not going hard in the game leads to an even more drastic simplification yeah.

So where exactly do you draw the line.

How can I know which maps you think should just be thrown under the bus forever. Ignored. No effort made to correct issues even if the fixes are relatively minor and won't have a significant impact on other game types?

If I see it played in the custom games tab perhaps its safe to assume that you think nothing should ever be done to correct issues on those maps that the balance team itself created?

I draw the line at the maps I put into team matchmaker pools. Funny enough Isis is one since I think it's a solid new player map at introducing the value of communication/reading the game in the form of early game cheese against tougher opponents. Not really sure If I want to have Isis in higher rated pools or not, will need to see how stuff goes once matchmaker is implemented.

Regardless, I wouldn't adjust the whole game just because I have an introductory map that specifically and intentionally reduces game options.

@FtXCommando said in Points of Imbalance.:

I think isis drastically simplifies the game and then players that have a predisposition to play deeply risk averse/are not going hard in the game leads to an even more drastic simplification yeah.

I tend to think of Fields of Isis as perhaps the second most iconic FAF map after Seton's. Its less popular now than it used to be, but it dominated through the GPG era and into the early FAF era.

I can't believe I'm hearing that we're ready to classify it as trash and justify making no attempt at fixing its issues.

And Black Forest is an iconic AOE2 map, it isn't the consideration in balance even though certain factions have an extreme advantage on it.

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

Also I'd hardly classify funeral plains as "open map" since it has tons of hills/ridges on the sides blocking the efficiency of massed spam/pushes while the middle is hard to push through due to the fact ACUs tend to hover around there + it's the easiest spot to pincer enemy attacks at and convert them into a mass donation. It's like calling Canis an open 2v2 map just because it has some flat terrain in middle.

Open map to me is more like playing Wonder Open in a 2v2 where massive tank spam must be done or you will get raided to shit. It's the inverse of closed map, rather than make no tanks I make nothing but tanks.

@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.