Improving Atlas/Torpid Model of Standardization(Long Post)

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

Improving Atlas/Torpid Model of Standardization(Long Post)

Postby Impregnable » Sat 01 Jun, 2019 1:34 am

- I said in my previous post that I support Atlas/Torpid Model of Standardization. In this post, I argue why I support it and how it can be improvised to have less flaws.

Atlas/Torpid Model can be summarized as below.
- Standard Upkeep/Pop ratio should be set to 2.55 upkeep/pop as given by Relic.
- There should be different Upkeep/Pop rates for vehicles, sub commanders and Tyranid units.
- Units that lose or gain upkeep rates due to the standardization should be either compensated or be penalized using other balancing tools.
- Exceptions can be made for certain units regarding upkeep rate for balancing purposes.
- Upkeep’s role as a balancing tool is greatly diminished but in certain cases, it will be used as a balancing tool.

1. Flaw of upkeep as a balancing tool -> Why should we minimize its role as a balancing tool
- The underlying assumption is that the upkeep is the most unreliable method of balancing.
- There are too many factors that make upkeep’s effect vary greatly for each unit. All other balancing tools have very few or no factors that affect their effect on units.
Stats
- Takes effect when you are using the unit.
- Effect varies according to how well the unit is used by the player or countered by the opponent.
Purchase Cost
- Takes effect when you purchase a unit.
- All prices are paid the moment it arrives. No other variables.
Rein Cost
- Takes effect when you reinforce a unit. All prices are paid the moment it arrives.
- Effect varies depending on how frequently the player loses model.
Red/EXP
- Takes effect when a model dies. All effects takes place the moment the model falls.
- Effect varies depending on how frequently the player loses model.
Upkeep
- Affected by 30 free population.
- Effect varies depending on when the player purchase unit and how long he keeps it.
- Effect varies depending on Tier of the unit.
- Effect varies depending on how well the enemy can kill models.
- Effect changes if player cheats upkeep by keeping certain squads not at full force.
- Affected by Upkeep Surplus and Upkeep Deficit effects.
- Effect varies depending on how durable a unit is and whether the faction can have options to support it.
- Can be dodged by throwing away units that don’t scale into late tiers.

- As shown in the above explanation, upkeep has the most tags attached to it and its effect will vary the most among balancing tools we have.

- This is why Atlas/Torpid Model want to minimize the role of upkeep as a balancing tool.
- They seek to achieve it by making every squad have pop/ 2.55 upkeep ratio.
- However, beside setting different standard rates for vehicles, sub commanders and Tyranid units, they want to make exceptions in cases when only upkeep is the right balancing tool despite all of its flaws.
- I found specific situations in which exceptions have to be made.

2. When upkeep is the only solution -> Why should we minimize upkeep’s role as a balancing tool but not completely remove it
- There are situations where you don’t want to use any other tool beside upkeep to nerf or buff a unit.
- Stats will straight away take huge effect even if it is small change.
- Purchase Cost will change timing of a unit purchase.
- Rein Cost cannot be applied to single entities and is superbly less effective for durable units that do not bleed easily.
- RED/EXP is superbly less effective for durable units that do not bleed easily. Single entity units don’t bleed.

- This kind of situation sound familiar right? What are you going to do to nerf or buff a unit when you don’t want to touch other tools beside upkeep values?
- Single entities are like this. Vehicles, sub commanders, super units are extremely hard to kill in high skilled range in 1V1. Especially, well supported transports are almost unkillable.
- Basically, there comes a time you want to penalize a player for keeping a valuable unit for longer. Upkeep is the only way to do this.

- Also as said by Crewfinity "Previously, if a squad was more efficient than they should be relative to their population (ex a unit has 8 pop but was performing at ~10 pop level) then we could just nerf their upkeep so that they were taxed at a fair rate. population values don't change as easily as upkeep does, so now if an 8 pop unit is performing at a 10 pop level, your only option is to reduce their performance."

- So far, I went through why I support minimizing the role of upkeep as a balancing tool and shown when upkeep is needed as an exception. Next is how I seek to improve upon the model.

3. Understanding metrics of each balancing tool
- Before I move into improvements section, I would like to make sure to summarize what we know of metrics for each balancing tool.
- Crewfinity’s quote gave me a hint on this. “Upkeep/Population vs Purchase/Upgrade Costs should be different balance levers since they cover different metrics”. When I saw that those two factors cover different metrics as a balancing tool, realized that it is going to be true for every single balancing tool.

1/ Stats
- Stats are stats.
- Changing it affects unit performance straight away. Even a slight change can have huge effect.
- As Dark Riku often said, don’t mess with small changes for no reason.
2/ Purchase Cost
- More valuable units are generally more expensive but the relation is very vague.
- Mainly governs the timing of the unit hitting the field.
- Time value of a unit is a very important factor in shaping a match up.
- Requisition and power cost each have different value for each faction and each faction have different values assigned for both requisition and power for each tier.
3/ Reinforcement Cost
- Cannot be assigned to single entities.
- Even the slight decrease or increase have great effect on those units that bleeds a lot. As such, high model low health per model squads can be either greatly buffed or nerfed using reinforcement cost.
- On the contrary, increase and decrease of reinforcement cost is worth extremely less for low model high health per model squads. Since such units bleed far less, the extent of the decrease or increase have to be in extreme proportions for it to have same effect compared to when it is applied to high model low health per model squads.
4/ EXP/Red
- Can be assigned to single entities however is not effective nonetheless because those units are extremely hard to kill in 1v1.
- This has same attributes as reinforcement costs. High model low health per model squads can be either greatly buffed or nerfed using EXP/Red while low model high health per model squads need the decrease or increase in extreme proportions for them to have same effect compared to when they are applied to high model low health per model squads.
5/ Upkeep
- Generally used to penalize a player for keeping a unit alive longer.
- Effective in penalizing single entities and low model high health per model squads.
- High model low health per model squads are generally assigned a low upkeep rate. This is bad for them because it causes Upkeep Deficit. Such squads should be standard upkeep rate, low total upkeep and should only be buffed or nerfed using reinforcement cost.
- Total upkeep and upkeep rate can be used in different combinations for different effects.
- Read my post on upkeep findings if you don’t understand what I mean by saying total upkeep and upkeep rate are two different things.

4. How to improve current upkeep model based on findings in 3.
- Balancing Tool analysis lead to below improvements in methodology.

1/ It is better to standardize upkeep rate of a high model low health per model squads.
- Currently, this kind of units are buffed by assigning them low upkeep rate. However, as I have shown in my upkeep findings post, total upkeep and upkeep rate are two different things and low upkeep rate cause Upkeep Deficit so it is not a buff.

Current Model
- High model low health per model squads bleed a lot and is constantly not at full strength as they have to often run back to base and reinforce.
- They are also easily wiped.
- As they have low rate of upkeep, they suffer Upkeep Deficit while running back to base after losing a bunch of squad members.
- If they happened to be wiped out, Upkeep Deficit harshly hurts the player’s economy.
- As a result of low rate of upkeep causing Upkeep Deficit, total low upkeep assigned to this type of unit is not giving them a reliable buff.

Improved Model
- Assign standard upkeep to these squads.
- If a buff is needed as a result, compensate using decrease in rein cost. If you need further buff, give them even lower total upkeep.
- As a result, these type of squads do not cause Upkeep Deficit while not being at full strength constantly and they don’t cause hurt in the economy when wiped.
- At the same time, low total upkeep assigned to them makes sure maintaining them do not hurt the player’s economy.
- From now on, this type of squads should be patched using reinforcement cost only. This is a way more reliable way of buffing or nerfing than trying to use upkeep as a balancing tool.
- Giving them below standard upkeep rate is out of question because of Upkeep Deficit effect and change of total upkeep is not a reliable way of buffing this type of squads compared to reinforcement costs as they bleed a lot.
- If reducing their total upkeep even lower is possible, this type of squads can be further buffed using higher rate of upkeep.

2/ Low model high health per model squads should be examined carefully before standardizing them.
- While standardizing, we come across this type of squads.
- You have to carefully examine each and everyone one of them before the standardization because of below reasons. Some of them should be exempt from it or be changed in a different way using total upkeep and upkeep rate separately.

Higher than standard upkeep rate + Low model high health per model squad
1) If they have higher than standard upkeep rate, standardizing them can harm catch up mechanism of upkeep system
- They are more valuable compared to high model low health per model squads.
- It is generally accepted that high value squads should cause more upkeep. Thus, maintaining more of such squads should cause more strain in economy via high total upkeep
- However, when they are lost, they cause more serious impact on the player compared to when losing high model low health per model squads. Thus, they should cause Upkeep Surplus when lost so that the player can recover faster and this can only be done when they have higher than standard upkeep rate.

2) It is not possible to compensate for the lose caused by upkeep change if they have higher than standard upkeep rate.
- Cannot touch their stats. It will affect performance.
- Cannot touch their purchase cost. It will affect their timing.
- Reinforcement cost change won’t affect them unless a crazy level of difference is given so this is out of question.
- For same reasons as rein cost, Red/EXP gain cannot be used to compensate as they don’t bleed as much.
- This leave us with upkeep which as I explained above in reason 1), shouldn’t be touched.

3) So, what do we do with them?
- You need to judge whether you want to change how they work. Do not change them for standardization’s sake. Standardization requires compensation and it cannot be given to this type of the squad without breaking balance significantly.
- That type of squad all have high total upkeep + higher rate of upkeep combination. This means two things.
- The player is penalized with high upkeep for keeping them longer.
- When they are not at full force or when you lose the entire squad, it causes Upkeep Surplus effect that helps your economy.
- Touch total upkeep if you want to buff or nerf economic penalty of keeping that unit alive for long.
- Increasing upkeep rate will cause even more Upkeep Surplus.
- Decreasing upkeep rate will reduce the Upkeep Surplus and decreasing it below standard upkeep rate will cause Upkeep Deficit penalty.

Lower than standard upkeep rate + Low model high health per model squad
- CSM is a good example of this before the most recent patch. It had the rate of pop/ 1.92 upkeep.
- In this case, the compensation can be possible but each choice has a consequence. I will use CSM as an example to illustrate my point.
1) Do not compensate at all.
Benefit
- Upkeep rate is standard so losing squad members and losing the entire squad will not cause Upkeep Deficit.
Loss
- According to my upkeep findings, upkeep change results in below difference in each possible builds.
- Tic + CSM + CSM => (2.55 - 1.92) x 10 = 6.3 per minute x 20 minutes = 126
- Tic + Tic + Tic + CSM => 0.63 x 10 = 6.3 per minute x 20 = 126

- Tic + Tic + CSM => 0.63 x 5 = 3.15 per minute x 20 = 63
- Tic + Tic + CSM + Tic => 0.63 x 5 = 3.15 per minute x 20 = 63

- Tic + Tic + CSM + CSM => 0.63 x 20 = 12.6 per minute x 20 = 252

- Tic + CSM + Tic + CSM => 0.63 x 15 = 9.45 per minute x 20 = 189

2) Compensate through rein cost change.
Benefit
- Upkeep rate is standard so losing squad members and losing the entire squad will not cause Upkeep Deficit.
- There is at least some compensation for the lose in upkeep.
Loss
- The change has to be extreme because CSM models do not bleed easily. Losing them often gives the enemy huge exp/red gain so the player will preserve it at all cost. Giving small buff to the rein cost will not result in right compensation but if it is buffed crazily in order to take effect, it will break balance.

3) Compensate with pop cost decrease to 4 per model.(Recommended)
Benefit
- Upkeep rate is standard so losing squad members and losing the entire squad will not cause Upkeep Deficit.
- Upkeep rate is standardized but total upkeep becomes very similar to the pre standardized value.
Total Upkeep after standardization. - 38.25
Total Upkeep before standardization. - 28.8
Total Upkeep if pop per model become 4 as a compensation after standardization. - 30.6
Loss
- A small portion of the upkeep is still lost compared to when the upkeep was 1.92.
Per minute comparison
- Tic + CSM + CSM => 2.55 x 8 = 20.4 per minute - (1.92 x 10) = 1.2 per minute
- Tic + Tic + Tic + CSM => 2.55 x 8 = 20.4 per minute - (1.92 x 10) = 1.2 per minute

- Tic + Tic + CSM => 2.55 x 4 = 10.2 per minute - (1.92 x 5) = 0.6 per minute
- Tic + Tic + CSM + Tic => 2.55 x 4 = 10.2 per minute - (1.92 x 5) = 0.6 per minute

- Tic + Tic + CSM + CSM => 2.55 x 16 = 40.8 per minute - (1.92 x 20) = 2.4 per minute

- Tic + CSM + Tic + CSM => 2.55 x 12 = 30.6 per minute - (1.92 x 15) = 1.8 per minute

20 minute comparison
- Tic + CSM + CSM
- Tic + Tic + Tic + CSM
2.55/4 > 20.4 x 20 = 408
1.92/5 > 19.2 x 20 = 384
384 - 408 = -24

- Tic + Tic + CSM
- Tic + Tic + CSM + Tic
2.55/4 > 10.2 x 20 = 204
1.92/5 > 9.6 x 20 = 192
192 - 204 = -12

- Tic + Tic + CSM + CSM
2.55/4 > 40.8 x 20 = 816
1.92/5 > 38.4 x 20 = 768
768 - 816 = -48

- Tic + CSM + Tic + CSM
2.55/4 > 30.6 x 20 = 612
1.92/5 > 28.8 x 20 = 576
576 - 612 = -36

3/ Single entities need an extensive discussion before giving them a rate.
- Here I only provide options that can be used when the decision is made.
- There can be 3 possible decisions.
1) All single entities are given standard rate
- Losing them don’t cause neither Upkeep Surplus nor Upkeep Deficit
2) Give high rate
- Losing them cause Upkeep Surplus
3) Give Low rate
- Losing them cause Upkeep Deficit

After above decision is done Buff/Nerf should commence as either compensation or penalty. Methods are restricted to below 2.
1) Purchase Cost
- Unit timing is either hastened or delayed.
2) Total Upkeep
- Units cause either more or less economic strain for staying alive longer.

5. Conclusion
- Atlas/Torpid Model is fine as it is but the improvements have to be made on below things.
1/ Compensation/Penalty Method for Standardizing upkeep.
- It should be differently done for below situations.
High model low health per model squad
Low model high health per model squad

2/ Before setting different Upkeep/Pop rates for vehicles and sub commanders, there should be a discussion on what the upkeep rate should be.
Standard/High/Low
"Excalibur!"
"Excalibur!"
"From the United Kingdom!"
"I'm looking for heaven!"
"I'm going to California!"
"Excalibur!"
"Excalibur!"

Return to “Balance Discussion”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests