Patch Suggestions

[Bonescorpion]

And whats wrong with breaking it down into simple math like I did, proved you wrong? I am sure there is a math error somewhere in there, I did not expect the outcome I received.

I am not going to go through the old posts here, but the only place I recal saying that M1>AT is with the civ upgrade on damage. My numbers are about where I recal them being.

As far as the formula that takes into effect lost units please be so kind as to show it to me, and keep in mind that I havent been in school for 14 years so a lot of stuff is rusty.

[taco]

the problem lies with attempting to break it down into simple maths, the game wasn't designed by a class of children, nor should ppl attempt to treat it as if it had, there is no maths i can do which wont have a flaw in it, if i was to try i would waste hours, pahaps even days figuring out the formula in which can account at&m1s targeting, changing targets(the reasoning why at's so significantly beat m1s imo), rof, and other important variables.

i did find out that at's have a damage multiplier of about 2.65 while the reverse tanks multiplier is aprox 0.45 to at's, some food for thought

[Captain Nemo]

Lol thats funny, I did not test against easy comp. As far as reading maybe you should reread my post about the whole zorg bullshit. It is simple math. Just because you dont want to understand it is not my fault. I do not know why we both got different results, but that is why I said that there are always going to be variables. I will tell you this, all the units fired at the same time. There was no delay, and a lot depending on the targeting of the AI.

I have read what you had to say, its you who cant seem to get it through your head. You dont like, get the fuck out of the thread, I could care less about whether you think I am right or not, you are the one so determined to prove me wrong and yourself right. Keep insulting away it really doesnt bother me............

Perhaps you should stop thinking in mathematical formulas and just go test it in EE vs a human or at least not outmicro the comp (what kind of craptest is that anyway). You said the basic triangle in modern was leopard>M1>AT>Leopard. Given both the damage advantage to AT, the cost advantage, and the pop cost advantage would you change this triangle?

[Bonescorpion]

My only concern is that it might create a more complex RPS triangle with AT>Leo>M1>AT instead of the current AT>Leo>M1<AT. Of course it would also lower the damage output of a leo vs M1. Although 8 less damage is not a big deal IMO

Care to reread that sentence.
Of course you want the game results they favor your conclusions. Just like I want the math because they back up my conclusions. The game is based on math, whether you like it or not and the game needs to be played whether I like it or not. I reiterate that there are many factors that are not accounted for. I didnt even get into terrain height.

[Skynet]

Hey Bonescorpion, its Skynet from Uc. Been a while, hows it going, haha... Glad to see you have found this place. However, I got tired of all the nonsense tinkering with balance-related issues that were based on the arguments of a select few (mainly eec players I might add) on an already dying game and decided it was time to move on and quit like 1-2 weeks ago. I respect your opinions on this issue more than anyone else currently on these boards tbh, but I have given up on this matter. Best of luck to you.

[Skynet]

the problem lies with attempting to break it down into simple maths, the game wasn't designed by a class of children, nor should ppl attempt to treat it as if it had, there is no maths i can do which wont have a flaw in it, if i was to try i would waste hours, pahaps even days figuring out the formula in which can account at&m1s targeting, changing targets(the reasoning why at's so significantly beat m1s imo), rof, and other important variables.

i did find out that at's have a damage multiplier of about 2.65 while the reverse tanks multiplier is aprox 0.45 to at's, some food for thought

Also, I might add that this game was balanced on alot math and RPS relationships. That's one of the reasons why game balance is so well when compared to other RTS games. Trying to make an argument when all you have as evidence to back up your claims is some tests you do in a 1v1 setting with a few units is not statistically valid here, as you are taking the result from of a very specific context in order to back your claims, something that everyone knows does not exist in RTS games. In order for something to become statistically valid you need to a large test sample in a beta setting (again something this community does not have) with different control factors in order to account for any kind of unforeseen emergent behavior as well. I see Boner's methodology of using math as the most neutral way of putting arguments forth on this issue, but then again, without knowing the exact formulas that were used to balance units in the first place this becomes a moot point and I remain skeptical due to unforeseen circumstances that can arise after changes have been made. My 2 cents.

Edit: Just want to add I just read first post and last few posts on this pages (skipped all the stuff in between). I think we should stick to balancing issues where the community has broad agreement on as we cannot find common ground on these issues... something stupidly obvious like nuclear missile cost or priest towers etc?

[peow130]

Bonescorpion, your numbers only hold true given all of the assumptions that you have made in deriving them, namely that:

1. Units will fire at exactly the same times
2. There is no difference in the rate of fire between units
3. There are only 1 of each unit
4. That fractional attacks are even worth considering in the way you are measuring.
5. Each unit was on level ground
6. His sample size exceeded 30, but no more than 45 samples.

At such a small sample one can only derive figures that are STATISTICALLY IRRELEVANT.

[Ghost]

Still waiting on an answer to the question...

[ben55]

An M1 can beat an AT gun if they have thing(s) the AT guns do not have(morale, healing, upgrades etc). M1s are fine they aren't intended to kill their anti and they don't in even playing field, but they can in favorable situations, and most situations where that would happen isn't due to costs or balance issues. It is a skill issue which may be why you are defending this so strongly .

M1s are very good early game because the cost difference between AT and them isn't noticed since animals are present and the metal's gathering are =. Allowing you to mass them very well, but even then an equal skilled player would hold them off if they made 2 AT for your 3 M1s. 10 on 10 would be even more doom for the M1s unless they had the favorable situation(s) mentioned above.

As for snipers and bazookas they aren't intended to be pure counter classes they bring special niches to the table that the pure counter classes cannot do. Snipers have AMAZING los use which makes them more than worth the cost, you pay 100 more resources for a balloon that is invisible 90% of the time, and can one shot kill infantry. Bazookas are very cheap but squishy and are not bad as defensive units if they were as good as AT why make AT?

I'm not going to make this a flame thread, so I am not going to go far into this, but your reputation six years ago wasn't thought to be of great knowledge or skill and it certainly isn't now, so don't be so full of yourself.

[peow130]

IMO, atleast bonescorpion has a rep.
From what i gather, the ben characters are just that, characters. Nothing more than smurf-trolls.

[Sexacutioner]

well its damn near like no one has read the verry first post of this thread

his entire balancing was based on ARMOR for tanks > AT to add a little depth to the game but you didnt pay attention to what he said and though he said

" tanks have to be better than anti tank or its retarded " <--------- i didnt see that anywhere, perhaps yuo guys need to learn to read and comprehend

[taco]

zeke is probably still the best mod tl player he is also a ben, im quite a decent mid player, also a ben, i could carry on and go through all the bens who are skilled players, but i wont, if u had anything to do with aoc peow( i no u did, how u became oblivious to it is beyond me), u would relise bens arnt really even smurfs, just another way of identifing each other(by numbers). long story short while the names are simply characters, the players behind them characters are some of the best players who play ee today, so i think ur a complete moron for even suggesting they have no rep.

[ben55]

To address the armor crap -- I imagine the reason why tanks have 10% less armor in the civ editor is because they have 6+3 range potential. While Cav have to run up to the units giving them some compensation aka 10% more armor. Which also is probably why they get more armor per upgrade than a tank.

his entire balancing was based on ARMOR for tanks > AT

Alright I have some theories on what you just typed. Theory 1) Bones' balancing is based on Armor to make M1s > AT. Theory 2) Bones' balancing is based on making the Armor on Tanks > AT. If you were saying either of those please don't open this thread again.

[peow130]

zeke is probably still the best mod tl player he is also a ben, im quite a decent mid player, also a ben, i could carry on and go through all the bens who are skilled players, but i wont, if u had anything to do with aoc peow( i no u did, how u became oblivious to it is beyond me), u would relise bens arnt really even smurfs, just another way of identifing each other(by numbers). long story short while the names are simply characters, the players behind them characters are some of the best players who play ee today, so i think ur a complete moron for even suggesting they have no rep.

Anybody can make a ben tag, hell i could, and people would think i'm pr0.

[taco]

thx for proving my point about ben's having ALOT of rep, ppl would auto assume ur good if ur on a ben tag(u would probably b soon after excluded from games after finding out how shit u are, but u would make the xpert games with ease for a couple of games at least).