General balance & design

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[AmPM]

The other option would be to balance all units to make the equally useful for their costs and roles....but that would just be silly.

Incremental pricing on units is a bandage to cover the actual problem. And that is some units just are not cost/pop effective when compared to other units available.

[Grundwaffe]

derail ftw

[RikiRude]

i have to agree with ampm to a certain extent i'm sure, most of those units are not priced right, but some of them need a smaller price change than others.

most everyone can agree on thompson price that plays with them. it would be a decent price decrease, something like mp40 volks just need a small decrease, like 5-10 mu.

bofors is also fail, and it will be fail unless it can become mobile.

i believe AB need a slight price decrease (260mp) and pool cost.

I think once all doctrines are in though it will be hugely easier so do slight tweaks to the doctrines to balance them with each other, and it will give the dev team much more time to focus on balancing through prices.

[CrazyWR]

well said

[Unkn0wn]

i believe AB need a slight price decrease (260mp) and pool cost.

The pool cost will be lowered once we have a means to restrict upgraded elite infantry in particular. (with the weapons cache, this will allow players to use unupgraded infantry as a mainline infantry unit if they want, greatly increasing company variety)

Their price however I think is more than adequate, once the AB doctrine comes in I'm sure you'll have to swallow your words about dropping them to 260 Mp :p

Incremental pricing on units is a bandage to cover the actual problem. And that is some units just are not cost/pop effective when compared to other units available.

How did we go from incremental pool values to incremental pricing? they're two COMPLETELY different things. No one ever suggested incremental pricing. (Which is something that is just outright useless when there's a pool system)

As for certain units not being cost effective enough, that's a whole different thing as well, make a seperate thread about those units.

bofors is also fail, and it will be fail unless it can become mobile.

Will get a rework at some point in time

I think once all doctrines are in though it will be hugely easier so do slight tweaks to the doctrines to balance them with each other, and it will give the dev team much more time to focus on balancing through prices.

There's going to be a BIG balance review when all doctrines are in, i.e a lot of balancing and some abilities being reworked/swapped, etc. We'll definitely be seeking community input when that happens.

[AmPM]

Pool is a price, just like resources....you pay out of a limited amount.

It's just a 4th resource.

[deadbolt]

didnt u ask for community input for the actual doctrines? yet theyre not in yet and probably wont even be community based. i bet some coder just went ona wtf solo mission hence the lengthy time limit

[Unkn0wn]

I guess you can look at it like that, but I wouldn't because it creates confusion.

Anyway, the pool system is essential and an incremental pool value system could further improve it as far as I can tell.

The other option would be to balance all units to make the equally useful for their costs and roles....but that would just be silly.

Incremental pricing on units is a bandage to cover the actual problem. And that is some units just are not cost/pop effective when compared to other units available.

I think this arguement is nonsense really, just because ALL units are cost effective does not mean someone will necessarily build a balanced company. You're making it look as if people turn to 'spam' and 'gimmicks' because there's not enough other cost-effective units around, when that is hardly ever the case.

People spam because they can, or because they enjoy it, not because they feel there's few units that are cost effective.

Hence why spam & gimmick related problems need to be addressed through a different mechanic than pricing.

[AmPM]

If they spam something thats not a problem.

A HISTORICAL US RIFLE COMPANY SPAMS RIFLES!! OMG!!!

The problem with spam, is that it uses the most efficient unit for the job, even if there are 3-4 others that fill the role. Usually this is the most efficient unit available.

You should be able to comfortably use a 5-6 Sherman/P4 company, or 3 Panthers, or 8 TDs/STuG/H whatever.

However, other options should be equally viable, such that a 1 Panther, 2 P4, 3 STuG company is worthwhile as well.

Does that make sense? Inhibiting players from making the companies they want through artificial forced "balancing" is stupid. Balance should come from a units viability on the field.

[Smokaz]

I do like the idea of 'incremental pool costs' based on the amount you have in your company, it'd allow us to make single unit picks weight lighter while still restricting spam. I'm sure it wouldn't be all too hard to implement. +1

Just put this in!

Then this wont be a problem:

If they spam something thats not a problem.

A HISTORICAL US RIFLE COMPANY SPAMS RIFLES!! OMG!!!

The problem with spam, is that it uses the most efficient unit for the job, even if there are 3-4 others that fill the role. Usually this is the most efficient unit available.

You should be able to comfortably use a 5-6 Sherman/P4 company, or 3 Panthers, or 8 TDs/STuG/H whatever.

However, other options should be equally viable, such that a 1 Panther, 2 P4, 3 STuG company is worthwhile as well.

Does that make sense? Inhibiting players from making the companies they want through artificial forced "balancing" is stupid. Balance should come from a units viability on the field.

[AmPM]

Just put this in!

Then this wont be a problem:

Then things still won't be equally viable. You will end up with optimal builds yet again, because you can only field so many of a unit before it becomes price inefficient.

[EIRRMod]

Balance should come from a units viability on the field.

And by what measure do you equate balance in regards to viability.

Through these current mechanics ;p

It is theoretically impossible to balance every unit by cost PERFECTLY due to the pure fact that units performance is based not only on unit capabilities (which we balance on) - but also adjusted strongly by the players skill.

Therefore, a unit cost list thats perfectly balanced for AmPM - would NOT be the same list as for IRNoob334 or IKICKAMPMsAss players.

Balancing units by cost, depending on the units mean potential is what we aim for.

[Unkn0wn]

I still fundamentally disagree with the premise that 'there would be no spam if unit pricing is perfect'.

Balance is not an exact science, there's no way for it to ever become 'perfect', you can only come close to perfection and even then you'll still have people that are of the opinion that it's not balanced. And even IF we somehow managed to achieve perfect balance, I still don't think that'd stop spam at all.

Here's the thing about spam and pricing: a unit is priced on its individual stats and performance in game, not on how well it performs when spammed. Some units are simply going to be better when spammed in large numbers than others, this is not due to their price but rather due to their ingame role and stats. Increasing their price because of that would punish the people who do not spam a certain unit and would actually move us further away from the ideal balance. THUS the only proper solution is to 'invent' a new 'price' that affects ONLY the people who spam a large amount of said unit.

What you are proposing is ultimately that when a unit is highly effective when spammed (like for example snipers) we raise the price on individual snipers, since clearly they're being spammed because they're too cost effective.


Edit: oops eirrmod kinda beat me to it

[AmPM]

And by what measure do you equate balance in regards to viability.

Through these current mechanics ;p

It is theoretically impossible to balance every unit by cost PERFECTLY due to the pure fact that units performance is based not only on unit capabilities (which we balance on) - but also adjusted strongly by the players skill.

Therefore, a unit cost list thats perfectly balanced for AmPM - would NOT be the same list as for IRNoob334 or IKICKAMPMsAss players.

Balancing units by cost, depending on the units mean potential is what we aim for.

A units viability is a mixture of cost/pop/effect, a unit that is highly effective but costs massive resources and pop is balanced (within reason), however, there are many units that are not efficient in any way.

As for balancing for the median, thats fine, as long as everything, doctrines, units, costs, etc, are balanced around the same player level. Balancing at the high end is probably a better choice though.

Artificially forcing players to take other units is just dumb, there should be a choice and thought put into said choices. I should have to think, "Hmm...should I take a Tiger, a Panther, P4 or STuG, all of them are good choices, lets see where I can fit them in and what I might need to sacrifice to do so". Not, "Oh, well, I took 2 STuGs already, so the third will cost me extra pool, I may as well just get this P4 since it won't gimp my companies pool."

[AmPM]

I still fundamentally disagree with the premise that 'there would be no spam if unit pricing is perfect'.

Balance is not an exact science, there's no way for it to ever become 'perfect', you can only come close to perfection and even then you'll still have people that are of the opinion that it's not balanced. And even IF we somehow managed to achieve perfect balance, I still don't think that'd stop spam at all.

Here's the thing about spam and pricing: a unit is priced on its individual stats and performance in game, not on how well it performs when spammed. Some units are simply going to be better when spammed in large numbers than others, this is not due to their price but rather due to their ingame role and stats. Increasing their price because of that would punish the people who do not spam a certain unit and would actually move us further away from the ideal balance. THUS the only proper solution is to 'invent' a new 'price' that affects ONLY the people who spam a large amount of said unit.

What you are proposing is ultimately that when a unit is highly effective when spammed (like for example snipers) we raise the price on individual snipers, since clearly they're being spammed because they're too cost effective.


Edit: oops eirrmod kinda beat me to it

Spam isn't a problem. Spamming of the most highly efficient units is. I'm sure nobody would cry if you spammed naked Rifles at them.

[deadbolt]

maybe if they had carbines, what ever happened to that as a t4 tbfh.

[Unkn0wn]

Which is also why you CAN spam riflemen, but not snipers. The pool system only really restricts spam of effective units.
Again, how else do you stop spam of effective units? By pricing them even higher? Some units are just going to be naturally more effective when spammed than others.

It's also why incremental pool pricing would only have to be used on those type of units, like the calliope.
(Although I'm personally not convinced the calliope is all that problematic, even when spammed)

Heck we can probably consider just lowering its pool cost a little, lol.

[EIRRMod]

A units viability is a mixture of cost/pop/effect, a unit that is highly effective but costs massive resources and pop is balanced (within reason), however, there are many units that are not efficient in any way.

I agree, and those should be culled out / made viable in some way

As for balancing for the median, thats fine, as long as everything, doctrines, units, costs, etc, are balanced around the same player level. Balancing at the high end is probably a better choice though.

I said mean, not median.  We have a large set of highly skilled players that remain, while our noobie pool comes and goes - thus:

The mean is the arithmetic average of a group of scores. The mean is sensitive to extreme scores when population samples are small.

I believe we aim for higher than the average

Artificially forcing players to take other units is just dumb, there should be a choice and thought put into said choices. I should have to think, "Hmm...should I take a Tiger, a Panther, P4 or STuG, all of them are good choices, lets see where I can fit them in and what I might need to sacrifice to do so". Not, "Oh, well, I took 2 STuGs already, so the third will cost me extra pool, I may as well just get this P4 since it won't gimp my companies pool."

Agreed.  This is why the first availability mechanic went bye-bye.... It just simply didnt work.
Currently, pool costs are a bit too narrow - we'll see what we can do

[Unkn0wn]

AFAIK he's primarily arguing against the idea of an incremental pool cost system, not against the pool cost system itself.

[Mysthalin]

Although I disagree with AmPM in what units he deems to be inefficient (I've found use for even the flammenwerfer HT, and had a vet 3 one for a while) - I agree with the basic premise of the theory he suggests.

I don't diversify my builds in (for example) having 4 M8s and 4 T17s instead of 8 M8s because the M8s just do a much better job than the T17s. I don't add grenadiers to my volks-spam because the volks are far more versatile and can do their job better. I don't add volks to my gren-spam because officer buffs benefit grenadiers better. And so on and so on.

I also disagree with the notion of units becoming "better when spammed". I think they're just as good as they are in singles - just when they're spammed them being better is easier to notice. A case of scale, rather than actual increase in efficiency.