On upgrade price balance

[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

[scrapking]

For any given upgrade, there are 3 pricing ranges.

Between 0 and X1, where it is a no-brainer to buy that upgrade as much as possible.

Between X2 and infinity, where you never want that upgrade.

Between X1 and X2 where purchasing it primarily depends on the relative cost of other available upgrades. (and certainly on the cost, and value of the unit it is being placed on).

So when judging an upgrade's cost, is it in which category?  Is it too much because there are better options to spend resources on?  If so, is it because those options are too cheap? or because the upgrade in question is too much?  Making choices about purchasing upgrades should ideally never be an easy decision.  That is when pricing has failed.  There should always be something you regret not being able to have.

To some extent this also applies to actual unit prices, except there are certain unit types that you simply cannot do without, and therefore will pay more in order to have them.  There really are no upgrades that are considered "must have", they are all luxury items to some extent.

So when you criticize DEV upgrade pricing, consider first where the actual problem lies.  Off the top of my head, I doubt any upgrade is not currently priced with the "X1 - X2" zone.

[salan]

Very good analogy scrapking.

Upgrades, the only upgrade I have a hard time accepting the price on is RR's, but I buy it, because as you say, I need it.

[Khorney]

i know, i just got some AB reinforcements and i forgot how much these bad boys cost, i mean, how much are shreks relatively?

[AmPmAllied]

While that may be true Salan, you have admitted before that you are not a min/max player, nor are you overly competetive. So you are more likely to take things because you like them or for the fun of it than others that take things solely on a cost/benefit analysis.

[salan]

While that may be true Salan, you have admitted before that you are not a min/max player, nor are you overly competetive. So you are more likely to take things because you like them or for the fun of it than others that take things solely on a cost/benefit analysis.

somewhat true, I do min max in my head, believe me.  But I try not to let it temper my end decisions as much.

[31stPzGren]

solely on a cost/benefit analysis.

Pricing Balance should always be on a cost benefit/effective basis. Anything else is just wistful thinking to the contrary.

Its just like the volks vs grens argument back when prices were at 170MP vs 240MP, where as volks were too economical and not "scaled" proportionately to grens. Even then, that argument was flawed and full of holes which cannot justify an increase to 195 MP anyway with a subsequent decrease of rifles to 200 MP.

Coupled with doctrine based discount, it just exacerbated the issue.

[Bubz]

I think the balancement comes within two grades

1) balancements between different factions, the purpose of this is to equally balance the different factions so that the winning factor is only skill and tactics
2) internal balancements between units of the same faction (like volks/grenadiers)

You have to balance the first point, only then you can balance the second. Otherwise you can double nerf the opposite faction while actually balancing a single faction. (volks are ok at 185 if grenadiers are at 240, volks aren't ok at 185 if rifles are at 200, are grenadiers ok at 240?) example of balancement.
What something does comes later than what your opponent counterparts do.

[31stPzGren]

What something does comes later than what your opponent counterparts do.

I think you'll start to find that as true as your points are, they have been frequently ignored or overlooked on previous occasions.

The rebuttal commonly given is always about "synergy" about promoting "combined arms" or how units are not necessary meant to be "balanced against each other" etc etc.