Post- 11/17 2.9 Patch Making Stream Notes and Points

Issues dealing with gameplay balance.
User avatar
Impregnable
Level 4
Posts: 875
Joined: Tue 02 Apr, 2013 2:58 pm
Location: SEGMENTUM TEMPESTUS

Re: Post- 11/17 2.9 Patch Making Stream Notes and Points

Postby Impregnable » Fri 01 Mar, 2019 2:10 pm

boss wrote:No antandron im not reading a long ass post about upkeep and shit for everything.

I don't really need too its very simply some units have less upkeep or had now then you think to yourself why then the answer will come too, not then look an other unit then see it has the standed upkeep then say we need to fixed this aka standardize it. Dats not how balance works you should at each unit by themselves not judge by another, again just look at the csm upkeep nerf now you don't see 2 csm much I wonder why and again why cos you wanted to standardize not cos it balance retarded change

Rec is everything is this game it buys you power, units, reinforce and all that shit now with all this upkeep shit happen you going to make these unit which had less upkeep worse off, making there builds worse off and we won't see these units used much which is already happen and not cos balance but cos you wanted to standardize stuff well done.


If 2 CSM is not used because of current upkeep change which resulted in a nerf, the balance team is doing it wrong unless they wanted to make CSM less effective as an intended nerf. They only did Step 1 and not Step 2 as seen in my post. If upkeep standardization results in difference in effectiveness of a unit that is not intended, it is WRONG.

If Antandron's logic is to work, CSM must get buff in one or combination of stats, purchase cost, rein cost in order to result in exact same effectiveness as before the patch. Below is what happened.
- Let's say CSM used to be effective by Stats(30) + Purchase Cost(20) + Rein Cost(15) + Upkeep(20) = 85. But this patch's upkeep standardization changed it so that Upkeep is 5 which result in different result of Stats(30) + Purchase Cost(20) + Rein Cost(15) + Upkeep(5) = 70.
- If they intended to nerf CSM, it is ok but if not this should not be the end of the balance change because CSM has now become less effective by the factor of 15. Standardization MUST BE A DESIGN CHANGE ONLY. Even after the change, units should be equally effective as before if not intended for buff or nerf.

Any and all unit performance change due to standardization MUST BE COMPENSATED BY other buffs beside upkeep change to result in same or at least similar effectiveness as before. Only exception is when nerfs and buffs are intended in the first place.
"Excalibur!"
"Excalibur!"
"From the United Kingdom!"
"I'm looking for heaven!"
"I'm going to California!"
"Excalibur!"
"Excalibur!"
Antandron
Level 2
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat 15 Jul, 2017 11:50 am

Re: Post- 11/17 2.9 Patch Making Stream Notes and Points

Postby Antandron » Fri 01 Mar, 2019 3:31 pm

Tyvm Impregnable, I don't have the energy to type about this stuff anymore.

I think better explanation is along the line of let us not use upkeep as a balance tool because it is not a reliable mechanic to use for balancing. There are several tools that can be used for balancing from unit stats, reinforcement cost, purchase cost to upkeep-pop(these two are hard rigged to be together. you can alter upkeep rate per 1 pop value but not separately changed each value to have 0 pop upkeep value).


I think reinforce costs should be standardised to 1/2 of purchase cost for ease of balancing and that is how Relic designed 99% of the unit reinforcement costs anyway. Exceptions are where someone changed it from 1/2 cost to something else, e.g. CSM Terminators which are now 50 power to reinforce *vomits*, Scout Snipers and a few others.

Which leaves us with only
a. Unit stats
and
b. Req/Power/Red cost

to be used for balance as everything else has been standardised, making the entire messy and confusing process much easier.
User avatar
boss
Level 3
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon 22 Aug, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: Post- 11/17 2.9 Patch Making Stream Notes and Points

Postby boss » Fri 01 Mar, 2019 4:21 pm

Impregnable wrote:

If 2 CSM is not used because of current upkeep change which resulted in a nerf, the balance team is doing it wrong unless they wanted to make CSM less effective as an intended nerf. They only did Step 1 and not Step 2 as seen in my post. If upkeep standardization results in difference in effectiveness of a unit that is not intended, it is WRONG.

If Antandron's logic is to work, CSM must get buff in one or combination of stats, purchase cost, rein cost in order to result in exact same effectiveness as before the patch. Below is what happened.
- Let's say CSM used to be effective by Stats(30) + Purchase Cost(20) + Rein Cost(15) + Upkeep(20) = 85. But this patch's upkeep standardization changed it so that Upkeep is 5 which result in different result of Stats(30) + Purchase Cost(20) + Rein Cost(15) + Upkeep(5) = 70.
- If they intended to nerf CSM, it is ok but if not this should not be the end of the balance change because CSM has now become less effective by the factor of 15. Standardization MUST BE A DESIGN CHANGE ONLY. Even after the change, units should be equally effective as before if not intended for buff or nerf.

Any and all unit performance change due to standardization MUST BE COMPENSATED BY other buffs beside upkeep change to result in same or at least similar effectiveness as before. Only exception is when nerfs and buffs are intended in the first place.




We not had a balance team in a long time hence why patchs keep getting worse, shit balance leads as well. Only reason why csm got this standed upkeep is cos of standardization by atlas again shit reasons. Not even had a standed upkeep until 5 patchs ago which he made up btw and now everything must have it cos atlas says so not cos balance.
Last edited by boss on Fri 01 Mar, 2019 5:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Forums great more stuff to talk about.
Antandron
Level 2
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat 15 Jul, 2017 11:50 am

Re: Post- 11/17 2.9 Patch Making Stream Notes and Points

Postby Antandron » Fri 01 Mar, 2019 4:58 pm

Not only are your posts poorly thought out and heavily salted, they read like shit too.

http://www.grammarly.com

Use it.

Don't credit Atlas with the idea of upkeep standardisation because that was my idea. I've tried to explain it but you refuse to even try to understand so I give up.
Atlas

Re: Post- 11/17 2.9 Patch Making Stream Notes and Points

Postby Atlas » Fri 01 Mar, 2019 6:51 pm

boss wrote:We not had a balance team in a long time hence why patchs keep getting worse, shit balance leads as well. Only reason why csm got this standed upkeep is cos of standardization by atlas again shit reasons. Not even had a standed upkeep until 5 patchs ago which he made up btw and now everything must have it cos atlas says so not cos balance.


Normally I don't step into these kinds of talks except for information so yeah, dropping information.

The only thing I created was the term "standard upkeep". Even then, I'm pretty sure Relic had their own phrase for it internally.

The fact that a vast majority of units cost upkeep at a rate of 2.55/pop was not something invented by me or anything, it's been in there basically since retail as far as I can tell looking through the files. It was only a patches ago that there was there really an awareness of it on a macro scale. Particularly, it was when we lowered the Guardsman Squad's upkeep and seeing some HUGE changes which led to asking the questions in the first place.

Now as for the interpretation of this, I leave to other people to form their opinions. But yeah, the upkeep structure being based around some standard number isn't some new invention.
User avatar
Black Relic
Level 4
Posts: 844
Joined: Mon 29 Jul, 2013 3:05 am
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Post- 11/17 2.9 Patch Making Stream Notes and Points

Postby Black Relic » Fri 01 Mar, 2019 7:56 pm

Personally i do like the idea of the game having a standardized upkeep per pop cost. That way the upkeep system is easier to follow and balance around. since there is a standard line to follow. If something needs to have its upkeep increased for a valid reason (hormagaunts for example that are more upkeep per pop) it can be more easily done without too much impact on how a race plays vs other races. Yes it would effect certain builds but they would still be viable only slightly harder to use due to at more 20-25 req less per minute so bleed would be more impactful.
"...With every strike of his sword, with every word of his speech, does he reaffirm the ideals of our honored master..." -From the Teachings of Roboute Guilliman as laid down in the Apocrypha of Skaros. Space Marines Codex pg. 54
User avatar
boss
Level 3
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon 22 Aug, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: Post- 11/17 2.9 Patch Making Stream Notes and Points

Postby boss » Fri 01 Mar, 2019 9:10 pm

You guys still don't seem to understand this at all but then you guys don't even play so. :o

You talking like each unit the same and this standard upkeep which only got made up a while ago will solve everything and balance the game wtf you guys on about you can't balance upkeep if everything the same you twats, you have to then mess around with stat changes, price changes and shit then each match up with get fucked up and just shit happens.

And all cos you guys want to "standardized upkeep" to make your lives abit easy to understand not cos of balance again why was this mod made balance, also caeltos wanted to make other builds be viable unlike retail another reason upkeep helped with this.

Again going back to 2 csm builds being less viable cos you want to "standardized upkeep" it made chaos lord even more better in mirrors cos the other player force into 2 csm builds now paying more upkeep unlike the chaos lord. You made tanky hero's of other races even better now cos guess what your 2 csm builds now you have you pay more and its not just bleed they impact this its also the fact you can't afforded other units cos you playing more income if your bleeding as well might as well concede.

Also now warp spiders are the next unit to get this "standardized upkeep" shit again this unit one of the worse bleed units in this game and its why you don't see them much hence why they had less upkeep to help with this you now removed that bye bye warp spiders you know its not hard to understand this but then you guys don't play this mod so why would you and then I ask why you allowed to do changes?
Forums great more stuff to talk about.
Antandron
Level 2
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat 15 Jul, 2017 11:50 am

Re: Post- 11/17 2.9 Patch Making Stream Notes and Points

Postby Antandron » Sat 02 Mar, 2019 5:35 am

Patch 2.8:

Chaos Space Marine Squad:
Upkeep cost increased from 1.92 to 2.55.

Pop is 15 so upkeep was 15 x 1.92 = 28.8 req/minute
Now 15 x 2.55 = 38.25 req/minute

Clickbait: 2 x CSM builds DESTROYED by an extra 9.45 req/minute upkeep confirmed.

None of this even considers the free upkeep on the first 30 pop so the CSM changes are much less than 9.45 req/minute.

(I don't fully agree with this change but Boss' is overreacting as usual.)

Patch 2.9:

Warp Spider upkeep increased from 2.39 to 2.55

Was 16 x 2.39 = 38.24 req/minute
Now 16 x 2.55 = 40.8 req/minute

Warp Spiders USELESS after MASSIVE 2.56 req/minute upkeep increase.

(Again I don't agree with this change either since reducing the cost of WS by 5/5 is insignificant and probably unnecessary, but still anyone can see that 2.56 req/minute makes almost no difference but still Boss finds time to moan about it every day.)
Atlas

Re: Post- 11/17 2.9 Patch Making Stream Notes and Points

Postby Atlas » Sat 02 Mar, 2019 8:35 am

Well actually Antandron you have to consider their upkeep relative to the costs of the other units on the field. The game deducts the cheapest 30 THEN tabulates the rest. So if you just put values in a pure vacuum like that you are overstating the actual experienced change in your req income. You'd need two full CSM squads and THEN certain squad leaders for Chaos before req income is even affected from what it used to be(as just two full CSM squads is still just 30 pop), let alone by any noticeable degree.

I did this math way earlier in some other forum post with AC tics, 2x csm with sarges and raptor with sarge and all that. Basically a build that tries to game the upkeep as hard as it reasonably could. I don't want to have to dig it out again but even in the least ideal upkeep circumstances for CSM it was like around 7-10 req a minute iirc?

The reason why the GM upkeep change had such drastic results is because it had a second core unit that had absurdly low upkeep - the Sentinel. Sents used to have 1.7 upkeep rate and we shifted GM from 2.55 to 2 for a bit. It was extremely easy to stack up at least 30 population worth of Sents and GM basically since the game's start and most people did it naturally. 2 Sent builds just exacerbated the problem under that setup so the GM change was quickly reverted once some samples were taken.

There's a very minimal change in Chaos eco due to the CSM change because it lacks those circumstances and even if you did try to game the upkeep system under the old CSM upkeep rates the results are just not worth it especially when it only really kicks in if you went 3x CSM or in T2 with a bunch of leaders. Come T3, most units have above standard upkeep and it renders this entire point basically moot.

Only the sorest of losers are going to honestly complain that a pretty minimal amount of req/minute in the grand scheme of gameplay starting in T2 and ending around T3 when big stuff comes out is what wins and loses games for them.
Antandron
Level 2
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat 15 Jul, 2017 11:50 am

Re: Post- 11/17 2.9 Patch Making Stream Notes and Points

Postby Antandron » Sat 02 Mar, 2019 11:16 am

I was being sarcastic with the " 2 x CSM builds DESTROYED by an extra 9.45 req/minute upkeep confirmed." and the "Warp Spiders USELESS after MASSIVE 2.56 req/minute upkeep increase."
User avatar
boss
Level 3
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon 22 Aug, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: Post- 11/17 2.9 Patch Making Stream Notes and Points

Postby boss » Sat 02 Mar, 2019 1:28 pm

I don't give much of a crap about what the numbers are and such tho would be nice to know, now Idk how upkeep works cos now there 2 ways of looking at it since crew pointed it out a while ago would be nice to know how it works for sure.

Again you don't understand you are nerfing a unit to fit your "standardized upkeep" not cos of balance you know the whole point of why this mod is here balance not cos you want standard upkeep to solve all which again you only made up awhile ago.

I don't care how many units had this 2.55 upkeep neither did the older balance team cos they did changes to upkeep to help out units in the first place, again something you could use to help out units now but instead you gone down this "standardized upkeep" with fix everything how retarded but then what do I expect from people who don't play the mod and are allowed to do changes or even talk about it.
Forums great more stuff to talk about.
Atlas

Re: Post- 11/17 2.9 Patch Making Stream Notes and Points

Postby Atlas » Sat 02 Mar, 2019 5:46 pm

If you don't like our explanations then either explain upkeep mechanics yourself so that we may enhance our understanding OR, failing that, explain how the CSM upkeep change has made significant changes to the general Chaos economy.

I'm so tired of talking in circles to someone who at this point has all but admitted he doesn't really care or understand what is going on. Being a good player is not the same as being a good Cope's coder or balance designer. That's like saying a good car driver makes a good car mechanic. They may know how to operate the wheel and pedals but most have no idea what goes on under the hood and would struggle to tell you how the pedals and wheel interact with the rest of the car.

So yeah, either shit or get off the pot. Either we achieve a breakthrough in how we understand the game or we don't because no one is changing their mind here.
User avatar
boss
Level 3
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon 22 Aug, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: Post- 11/17 2.9 Patch Making Stream Notes and Points

Postby boss » Sat 02 Mar, 2019 8:14 pm

I don't know what you going on about being a good player I never said that I said play or player someone who plays the game they mod you don't.

Let me explain yesterday when I saw you play as gk you was surprised how strong the knockback strength of the sent stomp even tho it was never change cos you copied and pasted that on the new Vortex for the bc then you said is probably op now, that's called being a player experiencing the change in game you don't do this at all until yesterday, the rest of the player base does this then gets mad at you including me for the changes that go in and stay in as well.

Sorry but there a lot more to elite mod than just looking at a bunch of stats, changing them that's all you do you look at stats if they seem reasonable to you test then vs ai then change goes into patch log dats not how balance works, again a guy who don't play this mod should not do changes simply.

I wished you just left upkeep alone like everyone said a long time ago and do the more important stuff. How am I understand upkeep if you say it works like this then crewfinity says it work diffently and shows proof of this which you agreed with wtf what am I to believe am I to guess?

I already told you reasons why csm change is bad one not saying it a 4 or 5 time again your only reason why you did this cos you want to "standardized upkeep" not balance, maybe you should try and answer what Impregnable said.
Forums great more stuff to talk about.
Atlas

Re: Post- 11/17 2.9 Patch Making Stream Notes and Points

Postby Atlas » Sun 03 Mar, 2019 6:24 am

This is what I mean by talking in circles. I ask a question and it's danced around. I ask you to explain WHY CSM upkeep was bad and WHAT has changed. I still don't have an answer besides some generic "wishing I did more important stuff" instead of doing upkeep.

Like what? I'm curious what you think I would do instead with the time it takes to adjust the upkeep field in the ebps of a unit.

You honestly haven't given a single reason for anything that I can see besides some vague, almost religious conservatism towards upkeep changes in general. This is a preference and not something that we can really discuss and quantify so it's very difficult to get anywhere.

You mention that I said to myself "darn, that Vortex might kb pretty far". Sure, I said that. In one game. In one instance when it detonated right in the middle of a blob of guardsmen. That was a hot take at the time and I'm hardly ready to bang the table for nerfs in one game especially for a wargear that's been irrelevant for two patches now. So now I go to Cope's, make sure the stats are all in line and then hopefully see some games with it and see how it is affecting games etc etc. I don't come in with an attitude towards what I expect to see which seems to be the case more often than I like.

I'm not interested only in hot takes. I want numbers/reps and a decent argument that interprets those. That's why I gave Crew's comment such credence and though I couldn't figure everything out about it, its findings are very interesting. Opinions can be argued till we're all numb on our fingers and, really, they only go so far.

Look, one of two things happen for you at this point to get my interest back in this topic.

A) Provide reps that show me a struggling Chaos eco. We can then discuss it or better yet go talk to Adila about it or:

B) Put some pen and paper together and calculate upkeep, showing the difference between the then and now and then discussing the impact of that difference. If you think our calculations are off, then offer a better explanation and show the findings. Stop wasting my time with "I don't knows". I'll take another look at what Crew is saying and trying to confirm his hypothesis "Upkeep is calculated based on upkeep/model, RATHER THAN Upkeep/Population" but for now, I don't see a reason to say that's true over what I said. And honestly, even if it was true, it'll still have a pretty minor effect in the context of any upkeep change as I already discussed.

If neither of those happen then, as far as I'm concerned, this is a dead topic and this is my last comment on it in this thread.
User avatar
Crewfinity
Level 4
Posts: 712
Joined: Tue 03 Dec, 2013 2:06 am

Re: Post- 11/17 2.9 Patch Making Stream Notes and Points

Postby Crewfinity » Wed 06 Mar, 2019 4:30 am

Just chiming in to say i still dont really understand how upkeep is calculated in this crazy game :)

In my testing (playing private games on high res, buying units and jotting down my req income as they each hit the field) it seemed like upkeep was applied per model, for every model you purchased after hitting 30 population.

It didnt seem to be based on upkeep rates at all or even upkeep/pop, it actually just seemed chronological (?!?)

For example - 2 scouts and a tac squad is 33 pop total. When i bought 2 scouts and then the tac squad, i got taxed on a single tac model (first model over 30 pop).
When i bought scout, tac, scout, i got taxed on a single scout model (first model over 30 pop).

Same composition and units on the field, but the order of purchasing made a difference in how upkeep was applied. I have no fucking clue how those calculations are affected by model losses... does the game remember which models have been on the field the longest?!


At the end of the day though, as unintuitive and confusing as the mechanic may be, slight differences and upkeep rate and the equation for calculating it dont make much of a difference - the variance is pretty small relative to overall req income
User avatar
Sex - Murder - Art
Level 2
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun 21 Oct, 2018 10:25 am

Re: Post- 11/17 2.9 Patch Making Stream Notes and Points

Postby Sex - Murder - Art » Wed 06 Mar, 2019 11:17 am

Crewfinity wrote:Just chiming in to say i still dont really understand how upkeep is calculated in this crazy game :)

In my testing (playing private games on high res, buying units and jotting down my req income as they each hit the field) it seemed like upkeep was applied per model, for every model you purchased after hitting 30 population.

It didnt seem to be based on upkeep rates at all or even upkeep/pop, it actually just seemed chronological (?!?)

For example - 2 scouts and a tac squad is 33 pop total. When i bought 2 scouts and then the tac squad, i got taxed on a single tac model (first model over 30 pop).
When i bought scout, tac, scout, i got taxed on a single scout model (first model over 30 pop).

Same composition and units on the field, but the order of purchasing made a difference in how upkeep was applied. I have no fucking clue how those calculations are affected by model losses... does the game remember which models have been on the field the longest?!


At the end of the day though, as unintuitive and confusing as the mechanic may be, slight differences and upkeep rate and the equation for calculating it dont make much of a difference - the variance is pretty small relative to overall req income


The very roots of the game has issues as well. But I think we can still move on with this oddness. It worked for last 6-7 years, and it will keep working even with its flaws.
There are many ways to say the right thing, and I choose the worst way to say it.
LOCALgHOST
Level 3
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon 15 Jan, 2018 2:48 pm

Re: Post- 11/17 2.9 Patch Making Stream Notes and Points

Postby LOCALgHOST » Wed 06 Mar, 2019 6:23 pm

Crewfinity wrote:Just chiming in to say i still dont really understand how upkeep is calculated in this crazy game :)

In my testing (playing private games on high res, buying units and jotting down my req income as they each hit the field) it seemed like upkeep was applied per model, for every model you purchased after hitting 30 population.

It didnt seem to be based on upkeep rates at all or even upkeep/pop, it actually just seemed chronological (?!?)

For example - 2 scouts and a tac squad is 33 pop total. When i bought 2 scouts and then the tac squad, i got taxed on a single tac model (first model over 30 pop).
When i bought scout, tac, scout, i got taxed on a single scout model (first model over 30 pop).

Same composition and units on the field, but the order of purchasing made a difference in how upkeep was applied. I have no fucking clue how those calculations are affected by model losses... does the game remember which models have been on the field the longest?!


At the end of the day though, as unintuitive and confusing as the mechanic may be, slight differences and upkeep rate and the equation for calculating it dont make much of a difference - the variance is pretty small relative to overall req income



u always taxed for the most costly model over 30 pop. so u got 2 tics one CSM - blow one tic and you got +3 req/minute instantly. 264/267

that's why chaos LR was imba before 2.9- u just wait some req and get waaaay too better unit than predator for a similar upkeep/cost
Atlas

Re: Post- 11/17 2.9 Patch Making Stream Notes and Points

Postby Atlas » Wed 06 Mar, 2019 10:37 pm

Crewfinity wrote:Just chiming in to say i still dont really understand how upkeep is calculated in this crazy game :)

In my testing (playing private games on high res, buying units and jotting down my req income as they each hit the field) it seemed like upkeep was applied per model, for every model you purchased after hitting 30 population.

It didnt seem to be based on upkeep rates at all or even upkeep/pop, it actually just seemed chronological (?!?)

For example - 2 scouts and a tac squad is 33 pop total. When i bought 2 scouts and then the tac squad, i got taxed on a single tac model (first model over 30 pop).
When i bought scout, tac, scout, i got taxed on a single scout model (first model over 30 pop).

Same composition and units on the field, but the order of purchasing made a difference in how upkeep was applied. I have no fucking clue how those calculations are affected by model losses... does the game remember which models have been on the field the longest?!


At the end of the day though, as unintuitive and confusing as the mechanic may be, slight differences and upkeep rate and the equation for calculating it dont make much of a difference - the variance is pretty small relative to overall req income


My findings corroborate these statements as well so far.

2 tics into CSM = 31 pop, but at +251. This is the upkeep cost of a single CSM model, which leads me to believe the game is tabulating not based on pop, but based on entities as you've said.

Going tic, CSM, tic = 31 pop, but at +261, which is the upkeep of one tic model.

However, in the first example, if you eat a tic and then reinforce it back to 31 pop, you get +261. This leads me to believe that upkeep is tabulated based on the spawning order of entities and the game always rounds DOWN. Meaning, like in the case of CSM, if even only 1 pop out of the 5 for a model is outside of the threshold, the game counts the entire model's upkeep.

(p.s. also consider that upkeeps are decimal values. The game displays +251 for a single CSM which would be 13 from +264, but I believe the game is tabulating it as +251.25 from their 12.75 upkeep and not displaying the decimals.)

I haven't had the time to dig in again and elaborate on my findings, but my suspicions are that the spawning order is the sole determinant towards the game's tabulation of upkeep beyond 30 population and the game does remember the spawning order of units in some way.

If I'm right, then these predictions should be correct:

(Do this as LC for ease of testing. Can try Sorc too, but would need to adjust the predictions)

2 gm without sargeants then a Sent, then a 3rd gm without sargeant = 33 pop, taxed at +256. (The cost of 3 gms)
2 gm with sargeants then a Sent = 35 pop tax at +238 pop (only the whole Sent)

3 gm without sargeants then a Sent, THEN execute 3 gm models and purchase 1 sargeant = 31 pop at +258/+261 (The cost of either the 2 pop sargeant or 1 gm model, depending on the order they spawned in. I believe the gm extra spawn after the sargeant in code, so it should be +261)

2 gms without sargeants, then 2 Sents, then 2 Storms = +176 (Charging 1 Sent, and the 2 squads of Storms at their ~2.06 rate)
THEN murder all GM and 1 Sent, rebuild 2 gm without sargeants = +201 (Charging 1 Storm Squad, then the 2 GM squads)
Lunatic
Level 1
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat 02 Mar, 2019 3:37 pm

Re: Post- 11/17 2.9 Patch Making Stream Notes and Points

Postby Lunatic » Mon 01 Apr, 2019 6:12 pm

Did anyone follow through with this upkeep theory?? It seemed to be pretty spot on, but then all discussion stopped.

The theory in question being that upkeep is calculated per each model that surpasses the 30 population threshold
Atlas

Re: Post- 11/17 2.9 Patch Making Stream Notes and Points

Postby Atlas » Mon 01 Apr, 2019 6:30 pm

Lunatic wrote:Did anyone follow through with this upkeep theory?? It seemed to be pretty spot on, but then all discussion stopped.

The theory in question being that upkeep is calculated per each model that surpasses the 30 population threshold


And ALSO that the ordering of units to tabulate upkeep on are based on spawning order! But yeah, I haven't followed up on this as I have worked on other projects at this point. But I would like some confirmation indeed :P
User avatar
Asmon
Level 4
Posts: 890
Joined: Mon 29 Apr, 2013 8:01 pm

Re: Post- 11/17 2.9 Patch Making Stream Notes and Points

Postby Asmon » Tue 02 Apr, 2019 5:04 pm

I thought we were sure that's how it works... why the doubt?
User avatar
boss
Level 3
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon 22 Aug, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: Post- 11/17 2.9 Patch Making Stream Notes and Points

Postby boss » Tue 02 Apr, 2019 5:56 pm

Well im not surprise that upkeep worked diffently should never have done anything with upkeep on units until they was sure how it works but atlas just did his own thing "standardized upkeep" will fix all most retarded thing I heard on balancing.

But if crew right which im sure he is then anything can be made to pay upkeep which not only mean atlas was wrong and cheapest unit don't go to that 30 free pop then pay afterword's but each unit upkeep number matters and can be used to help out with balance which was why old elite team did those upkeep changes.
Forums great more stuff to talk about.
Lunatic
Level 1
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat 02 Mar, 2019 3:37 pm

Re: Post- 11/17 2.9 Patch Making Stream Notes and Points

Postby Lunatic » Sun 07 Apr, 2019 2:25 am

Hey everyone, I've got an update on upkeep (not that I'm qualified or anything :lol: ). It's obviously been a confusing concept, but after looking through Crewfinity's spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing) and Antandron's Upkeep and Pop Values doc (http://www.mediafire.com/file/tdvknf9n4 ... alues.docx), as well as this whole thread for what players know about upkeep, I found a way to pull all the findings you guys have come up with together to form a revised theory on Upkeep. I reviewed all the data, including lots of my own, to solidify this theory. Also, I have come up with an obscure and hypothetical situation that, so far, can only be explained with this new upkeep theory. Here is that hypothetical situation:

As Ordo Malleus, you build:
(10) Inquisitorial SS
+(1) ISS Sergeant
+(5) GK Termi Librarian
+(5) Vindicare Assasin = 264 Req /21 Pop
+(12) Inquisitorial Ops = 256 Req / 33 Pop
+(15) Strike Squad = 218 Req / 48 Pop

Now, we kill off the (5) Vindicare Assasin and the (5) GK Termi Librarian...
-(5) Vindicare Assasin =238 Req / 43 Pop
-(5) GK Termi Librarian = 264 Req / 38 Pop<---
So, we managed to end up back at 264 Req, the starting total, yet still have 38 Pop. How did we do this??

Well, it should surprise no one that upkeep cost follows a set of rules. The good news is that it can be summarized in 3 Rules. Let's go over the (tested) situation again:

As Ordo Malleus, you build:
(10) Inquisitorial SS
+(1) ISS Sergeant
+(5) GK Termi Librarian
+(5) Vindicare Assasin = 264 Req /21 Pop <--- Rule #1: Starting Req is 264, and you do not pay any upkeep costs until you surpass 30 Pop.
We are still under 30 Pop, so we have not violated this rule, yet...
+(12) Inquisitorial Ops = 256 Req / 33 Pop <--- Rule #2: If you deploy any model(s) that would cause you to surpass 30 Pop, you pay an upkeep cost. That upkeep cost is equal to the upkeep cost of any model(s) that surpassed the 30 Pop limit.
The (12) Inquisitorial Ops will push us to 33 Pop, so we are now following Rule #2. Since the (12) Inquisitorial Ops deploys as a squad of 4 members, their Pop is distributed in increments of (3) per Operative. We were previously at 21 Pop prior to the purchase, so 21+3+3+3 +3 =33 or 30 +3. That 4th member of the Operative is what pushes us over 30 Pop, so he is the model that gets taxed. 264 - (3)x2.55 = 256.
+(15) Strike Squad = 218 Req / 48 Pop
Same as Rule #2, we must pay upkeep for this overpopulation. It is (15) for SS, so 256 - (15)x2.55 = 218 / 48 Pop.
-(5) Vindicare Assasin = 238 Req / 43 Pop <--- Rule #3: If you lose any model(s) while over the 30 Pop limit, you are redeemed an upkeep cost equal to the upkeep cost of the lost model(s). If losing any model(s) would cause you to drop below the 30 Pop limit, you refer back to Rule #1.
The (5) Vindicare Assasin is worth 20.4 Upkeep, so 218 + 20.4 = 238 / 43 Pop.
-(5) GK Termi Librarian
GK Termi Librarian is actually worth 26 Upkeep (not 20.4 as mentioned in Codex) from a statistic calculated during other trials (trust me on this one). 238 + 26 = 264 / 38 Pop.

I came up with these rules after analyzing all the data. Then, I stressed tested it with an obscure situation that no other theory should have been able to prove; Having 264 Req while holding onto 38 Pop. The thing is, since Rule #1 sets you at 264 starting Req, and you don't pay any upkeep costs for models under the 30 Pop limit, you can flood yourself with high upkeep units (such as Vindi and Librarian) early and not have to suffer the upkeep costs later. Any high upkeep unit will work. When they die off later, Rule #3 will redeem their high upkeep cost even if you weren't paying for it. In our example, the higher upkeep of the Vindi and GK Librarian (almost double that of standardized units) will net us a surplus of redeemable Upkeep cost, allowing us to later fund an additional 8 Pop but maintain still 264 Req.

Do let me know if there are any errors with this explaination, any irregularities, or if more clarification is needed. If it ends up being true, it can certainly help with any upkeep based balancing.
Antandron
Level 2
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat 15 Jul, 2017 11:50 am

Re: Post- 11/17 2.9 Patch Making Stream Notes and Points

Postby Antandron » Sun 07 Apr, 2019 7:23 am

Great post.

My only criticism is that the phrase "the higher upkeep of the Vindicare and GK Librarian" isn't strictly true since they are subcommanders and these have a lower than average pop value for whatever reason. Both have less upkeep than Tacs and many other T1 units which they are stronger than.

Return to “Balance Discussion”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests