Well, not like it have chase to be readed, but i was thinking abot all that, so here comes another long post. I see what an approach balance team use, and it, well... It maybe called "problem-orientired". If somethig seems broken, let's fix it by changing it. And that approach is not ideal, because... Well, no one is. But not only for that reason. Balance - is titled "balance" because if change something it will affect may thing if not all of it. So changing of vet sistem to mass cost form number of kills is hude buf for t1 units, because t2, t3 or t4 units has a much more less chance became veterans and get stronger while figthing t1 spam. So new vet sistem change cost efficiency of all tiers or units. So there is less rewarding to figth t2\t3 wich t1, becauce of it. So it less rewarding to get t2 or t3 units.
And about rewarding. If balance is about solve "problem" that madet by some uint, it mostly not rewarding, but punishing balace sistem - if something good, players will use it more, and so if nerf it, it will be balanced. kh ASF kh If even nerfed - it still used more offen, nerf more, and there to the poit where no reason to use it at all.
So its work like "If somethig is better that other options
analogue, that will get nerf". Nerfing thigs - makes players feel like if they keep use it, it will get nerfed more. Psycology proofs that. And so they do not want to use it anymore. Because 1) It was better 2) It may and will get worst if they keep use it.
What about UI mods, they make thing easyer to do, but now seems like now balance team want everything it game be hard to do.
Lets talk about that. 99% play for pleasure. They not want to be punished for using somethig, and there how it is now. In situationt where compete two players wich same APM and game mechanic undestanding - wold win player who has more
effective APM. And easyest way to have more effeive APM is use untis that require less control.
So how it will be for new player who learns game.
One way (superior efficiency)- do thigs that require less control to be effective, win in compete wich same skill level player - that means be rewarded. Them get to more skilled level, be beaten, up control to this level - win (be rewarded).
Other way (superior microcontrol) - do thing that reqire more control to be effective, lose in compete wich same skill level player - be punished for a try. Up control to better level, win versus players wich less control, and get to the players wich same control level, to be beaten again. (be punished)
Units that require more control are a more risky strategy. Mistakes are punished more. So if you use your APM to make better economy, not do any risky move, you must just wait for opponet to make mistake. If you rely on micro you have to take the risk. The more difficult the control, the greater the risk. The more APM you need take out pillal wich hoplite, the more APM other player can put to mass taking, to make more pillars, or someting else. They about to same cost in mass and energy, but... If we take APM like another resource (and it is) hoplite much more expensive. But mass from pillal can be taken back if needed, and you can stop invest mass in pillals and pillars that you have will still be effective. Not microed hoplite is much less effective. So if you use (x) APM to get 1k mass, made pillars - you can just a-move, and if use (x) APM to get 1k mass and made hoplites, you must also use (y) to control it to win versus pillars. So if players have same APM - pillar player have (y) free APM, that he can use to conter hoplites, say put pd's wich a com. And that requires less APM, so it (y-i), and hoplite player have to react and not lose his units, so he requires more (u) APM and some (c) APM to couter pd. So (superior efficiency) player need x+(y-i) APM and (superior microcontrol) need x+y+u APM to not lose, and x+y+u+c APM to win. So (superior efficiency) have (i+u+c)=(q) "free" APM to do somethig. If that someting (like TML) require from (superior microcontrol) player (q+1) APM to conter, situation will get only worst. So you can snowboll efficiecy just like mass, only thing you need to do it use things that needs less contlrol over time, and you will "eat" APM of your opponent.
So if you trying to play first way, you must be not worse that your opponet, that play second. If you play second - you must be better.
This is also true for ui and ui mods, because player who eco more and micro less - can use ecomanager, and build template, like storages on left click (that trade one action for some), and player that eco less and micro cant use ui mod that will reduse number of actions to do somethig. If you eco hard and have t3 mex you just need to protect in on your base, if you micro hard, and have reclame field, you must micro even more to get engy here, to make them take it fast, and to protect them on the front. But here is ui mod's that helps manage mexes, and that fine. And any ui mods that help reclame or control units are banable. Eco more, spam more, that not really a thing - do what require less APM more. So betwen two equal players will win player, that use units who need less control to be effective. So that how high APM RTS works?
So now how FAF works - try to do something that need more control - be punished and overcome or be punished again, and also after you do that, be punished again, because you move to next level, do all over again. Try to do somethit that need less control - be rewarded and you also can improve to be rewarded more.
People do not want be punished, they want to be rewarded.
But well, that wont affects 1% of 1700+ ladder (or its just seems so), or anyway. Who caries what balance do to players
below top level.
That post will not be readet or answered, tho. Because Im average joe, and must be grateful that can play at all, and even Tagada won't getting someting that coutns like reall answer.
