2.9 Patch: Upkeep and Pop Values.

Issues dealing with gameplay balance.
User avatar
Antandron
Level 2
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat 15 Jul, 2017 11:50 am

2.9 Patch: Upkeep and Pop Values.

Postby Antandron » Mon 14 Jan, 2019 7:35 am

One major problem with each patch release is that 12 different players can hold 12 different opinions on what a units stats, cost, upkeep or pop value should be and this causes much annoyance in the community and many poor balance decisions. The aim of this post is to explain what I believe to be the correct method for setting upkeep and pop values, in a way that most players can understand, and therefore prevent the usual response of "stop fucking with the upkeep" to every upkeep change in every patch. Changes to upkeep and/or pop values should then not be met with any opposition once the reasons for them are obvious.

It is also important to post it now, before 2.9 is released, as there are two changes to Nid upkeep, namely Raveners and Venom Brood, which will be terrible for the Nid economy. All stats are using patch 2.9 from the beta notes here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gAW ... s=5b74949a

Upkeep

Premise 1. Upkeep is designed to be a catch-up mechanism preventing larger armies from snowballing easily. It acts as a tax on units that reduces available req income in proportion to the strength of the army.
Premise 2. Upkeep has NOTHING to do with ‘asymmetric balance’, ‘flavour’ or ‘comparing units in a vacuum’.
Premise 3. The cost of a unit in req/power is closely related to its strength.
Conclusion 1. For upkeep to be a ”fair and balanced” tax it should be a fixed percentage of the unit’s cost for all units in all factions. Stronger units in the same tier should have more upkeep than weaker units; units of similar strength, and therefore similar cost, should have similar upkeep.
Note1. Upkeep between units in different tiers can’t be compared since the % tax is lower for tier 2 and tier 3. Tier 2 units can be compared to tier 2 units and tier 3 units can be compared to tier 3 units but tier 2 units should not be compared to tier 1 nor tier 3 units.
Note2. Upgrades complicate the matter a little as they increase the cost and strength of units while not changing the upkeep, but can be ignored for now as nearly all units have some possible upgrades available.
Note3. These examples do not use squad leaders and neither do they need to as squad leaders have their own upkeep values.

Tier 1 examples:

Tics (200/0) should have a similar upkeep to Scouts (210/0).
CSM (400/0) should have slightly lower upkeep than Tacs (450/0).
Devs (250/30), Havocs (250/30), Guardian Weapon Teams (250/30) and HWT (250/30) should all have the same upkeep. Lootas (240/30) should also be similar upkeep.
ASM, Raptors and Stormboys should have higher upkeep than Tacs, CSM and Sluggas.

Examples of broken tier 1 upkeep:

Rangers (210/25) have the same upkeep as unupgraded GM (210/0) at 15 upkeep each.
ASM (450/50) and Raptors (400/40) have the same upkeep as Banshees (350/0), Tacs (450/0) and CSM (450/0) at 38 each.
Raveners (400/40) have the same upkeep as unupgraded Sluggas (270/0) at 31 each.
Catachans (350/40) have less upkeep than Sentinels (350/0) at 26 vs 31.
Warriors (300/25) are having their upkeep changed in patch2.9 to 57.

Tier 2 examples:

The best T2 units such as the SM Dread (450/120), CSM Dread (410/120) and Wraithlord (425/100) should have much higher upkeep than weaker T2 units.
The best T2 transports such as the Falcon (360/90) should have higher upkeep than the average transports like the Razorback (280/60) and the Chimera (300/70) and the Wartrukk (200/30) should have the lowest upkeep of the transports.
The worst T2 units should have the lowest T2 upkeep, e.g. Tankbustas, Venom Brood, Storm Troopers.

Examples of broken tier 2 upkeep:

The SM, CSM and GK Dreadnoughts have an upkeep of 38 while Warpspiders have an upkeep of 41, Venom Brood 57 (patch 2.9), Bloodletters 41, Chosen PMs 41, PMs 38, Wraithguard 38.
The Falcon (360/90) has an upkeep of 31 which is the same as PDevs (400/0) Stikkbommas (330/20), Tankbustas (300/0) and only 5 more than the Wartrukk (200/30).
The Autarch (350/50/150red) has an upkeep of only 13.

The consequence of this that that the meta leans towards walkers and transports and away from T2 infantry which is making the game stale imo.

Examples of broken Tier 3 upkeep:
Lictor (400/75) has 26 upkeep and the Neurothrope (400/75) will have 51 upkeep in patch 2.9
Flash Gitz (37 upkeep) Commandos(38 upkeep) compared to GK Paladins (54 upkeep).

Pop Values

Premise1. Pop values are designed to cap the max strength of each army.
Premise2. For pop values to be useful, 100pop of each faction should be approximately equal strength to 100pop of every other faction.
Premise3. Pop values have NOTHING to do with ‘asymmetric balance’, ‘flavour’ or ‘comparing units in a vacuum’.
Conclusion1. Pop values should be proportional to the strength of the units.
Premise4. The cost of a unit represents its strength.
Conclusion2. Pop values should be proportional to the cost of the units.
Conclusion3. For units in the same tier, stronger/more expensive units should have higher pop values than weaker/cheaper units. Units of similar strength should have similar pop values.
Note1. Pop values can only be compared to units in the same tier in the same manner as upkeep and for the same reason.
Note2. It is difficult to get correct pop values for units with multiple models as each model can only have an integer for pop values, e.g. Banshees can only ever really be 10pop (5models x 2pop/model) or 15pop (5models x 3pop/model).

Tier 1 examples:


Set Ups Teams which all cost about the same should have the same pop values.
ASM (450/50) should have higher pop than Tacs(450/0)
Raptors (400/40) should have higher pop than CSM (400/0) and a similar pop to Raveners (400/40).
Stormboyz(350/35) should have a similar pop to Catachans (350/40).
Spotters (280/30) should have a similar pop to Set Up Teams (~250/30)
Noise Marines (350/30) should be similar to Tacs(450/0).
Painboy (350/30) should be similar to other 350/30 units (Catachans, Stormboys)
Rangers (210/25 in patch2.9) should be similar to scouts, heretics and guardsmen.

Examples of broken Tier 1 pop values:


Rangers at pop 6 and Painboy at pop 5 when heretics are pop 8, scouts are pop 9 and hormagaunts and termagaunts are pop 8.
Ravener Brood (400/40) are pop 12 when Tacs, CSM and SS are pop 15.
ASM, Raptors should be more pop than Tacs and CSM but this would increase the pop of SM and CSM too much imo so better to leave them alone.
Banshees are pop 15 but only cost 350/0 while ASM and Raptors are also pop 15.
Catachans pop 10 but Tacs and CSM pop 15.
Spotters pop 9 when Set Ups teams are all pop 12 with the exception of the HWT which is pop 8, which is also broken and should be moved to 12.
Sentinel could go down in pop to 9 but difficult to say with recent patch2.9 changes.

Tier 2:

As with upkeep, the best T2 units should have higher pop values than the average T2 units. This is not the case.

Examples of broken Tier 2 pop values:


SM, CSM and GK dreadnoughts are pop 15. Compare to Bloodletter pop 16, Warpspiders pop 16, Wraithguard pop 15, Venom Brood pop 15, Plague Marines pop 15.
Subcommanders have very low pop: Autarch = 5, Librarian = 5, Vindicare = 5, Weirdboy = 5.
Wraithlord and Falcon are only pop 12. Compare to above infantry.
Wartrukk is pop 10 but is much worse than the Falcon at pop 12. Deff Dread is pop 12 but significantly worse than the Wraithlord at pop 12 also.

Tier 3


Examples of broken Tier 3 pop values:

Non-SHI cost too much pop in comparison to other units. Kasrkin, Kommandos and Interceptors are all pop 15 when Terminators are pop 21.
Lictor is only pop 5.

Objections

"Stop fucking with the upkeep." Why not? If it's broke, fix it.

"This will cause more problems." It will probably cause some units to become more or less strong, but it will also help correct many problems, the major ones being 2.9 Warriors, Venom Brood, Autarch, a stale T2 meta of walkers and transports, and expensive T3 infantry that almost never get used. Any problems that do exist can be fixed with req/power changes or stat changes.

"What about upgrades? Do they not make units much better and should they change their upkeep and pop values?" It would be too complicated to add pop and upkeep for upgrades, and considering that most of the units have upgrades available to them, if upgrades are ignored for now it wouldn't make much difference since it affects all factions equally.

"What about squad leaders?" I'll cover these in another post.
User avatar
Impregnable
Level 3
Posts: 493
Joined: Tue 02 Apr, 2013 2:58 pm
Location: SEGMENTUM TEMPESTUS

Re: 2.9 Patch: Upkeep and Pop Values.

Postby Impregnable » Mon 14 Jan, 2019 8:48 am

I can think of two questions you may have to clarify in order to make others better understand your views afterwards.

Let us say we did standardized all upkeep and pop values.

1. Do you agree on upkeep and pop value being an alternative tool of balancing a unit?
Example: A unit is over or under performing so we have on our hands many options to balance it out. We figured changing stats would be affecting other factions match ups so we decided to alter upkeep or pop value to indirectly balance it.
- This question is to clarify whether you believe standardized upkeep should stick to that value eternally. I remember seeing someone doubting your position on whether pop and upkeep can be used as a balance tool after standardizing is done.

If you agree that we can use upkeep and pop as an alternative tool of balancing after standardizing, there is one more thing to clarify.

2. Do you agree that balancing using altering upkeep and pop values should only be applied based on problems of 1 V 1?
- Some may doubt you are basing your opinion in team game results which goes against this mode's purpose in the first place. Balancing should solely be done to solve 1 v 1 match up imbalances.
- Only when it is totally proven that it won't affect 1 v 1 match ups, balancing can be done for team games.
Example(Affect 1v1 so cannot be changed for team games) - Balancing Nobz based on team games cannot be done
Example(Little to no affect on 1v1 so can be changed for team games) - TM beacon moving to T2 from T1 was able to be done because beacon was very very niche in 1v1

Also a word of advise on what can be improved. Since you spent lots of time studying this subject, it won't hurt to research further. Make sure you study a massive number of replays from 1v1 to better understand every niche details of each match up and heroes. Especially if you don't want to hear, don't compare in vacuum etc. When you can pretty much explain most of every detail of match ups, you can prove your point better. Don't turn a blind eye from this responsibility because what you are suggesting is a massive change. Rule of the thumb is if you don't know, don't touch. Wish you luck.
User avatar
Antandron
Level 2
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat 15 Jul, 2017 11:50 am

Re: 2.9 Patch: Upkeep and Pop Values.

Postby Antandron » Mon 14 Jan, 2019 11:10 am

Impregnable wrote:1. Do you agree on upkeep and pop value being an alternative tool of balancing a unit?


The various game length makes it impossible to do properly as lowered upkeep has little effect if the unit in on the map for only a few minutes and higher upkeep becomes very expensive if the game is 30 minutes long. Besides, req/power costs and unit stats are enough to balance units and it doesn't need to be made more difficult.

Impregnable wrote:2. Do you agree that balancing using altering upkeep and pop values should only be applied based on problems of 1 V 1?.


I don't understand this question. Standardising upkeep and pop will help balance 1v1, 2v2 and 3v3 games.

Impregnable wrote:Also a word of advise on what can be improved. Since you spent lots of time studying this subject, it won't hurt to research further. Make sure you study a massive number of replays from 1v1 to better understand every niche details of each match up and heroes. Especially if you don't want to hear, don't compare in vacuum etc. When you can pretty much explain most of every detail of match ups, you can prove your point better. Don't turn a blind eye from this responsibility because what you are suggesting is a massive change. Rule of the thumb is if you don't know, don't touch. Wish you luck.


Well, there are 171 different match-ups in Elite Mod and the meta changes with each patch, making arguments based on specific game replays quite unconvincing. Upkeep and pop values should not have anything to do with balancing different matchups in the same way that retreat speed, colour schemes and the cost of Tier 2 don't either.
User avatar
Impregnable
Level 3
Posts: 493
Joined: Tue 02 Apr, 2013 2:58 pm
Location: SEGMENTUM TEMPESTUS

Re: 2.9 Patch: Upkeep and Pop Values.

Postby Impregnable » Mon 14 Jan, 2019 11:27 am

Antandron wrote:
Impregnable wrote:2. Do you agree that balancing using altering upkeep and pop values should only be applied based on problems of 1 V 1?.


I don't understand this question. Standardising upkeep and pop will help balance 1v1, 2v2 and 3v3 games.


- The question is which mode will you base your balancing decision on when making balancing decision AFTER YOU STANDARDIZED UPKEEP AND POP. The game is balanced and designed based on 1v1 so almost all balancing decision was made so far in regards to 1v1.
- You need to clarify whether you want to change this standard or not.

Former Principle of Balancing
- I only balance according to fix 1v1 imbalance. Team game changes can only be made when, it doesn't affect 1v1 balance.
Player A - Nobz are OP in team games.
Balancer - Cannot change because it will affect 1v1 balance.

New Principle
- Basically anything that doesn't fit former principle.

- You need to make clear whether you support the former or prefer a new principle. If you support a new principle, need to say what you have in mind as a new principle.

Antandron wrote:
Impregnable wrote:1. Do you agree on upkeep and pop value being an alternative tool of balancing a unit?


The various game length makes it impossible to do properly as lowered upkeep has little effect if the unit in on the map for only a few minutes and higher upkeep becomes very expensive if the game is 30 minutes long. Besides, req/power costs and unit stats are enough to balance units and it doesn't need to be made more difficult.


Antandron wrote:
Impregnable wrote:Also a word of advise on what can be improved. Since you spent lots of time studying this subject, it won't hurt to research further. Make sure you study a massive number of replays from 1v1 to better understand every niche details of each match up and heroes. Especially if you don't want to hear, don't compare in vacuum etc. When you can pretty much explain most of every detail of match ups, you can prove your point better. Don't turn a blind eye from this responsibility because what you are suggesting is a massive change. Rule of the thumb is if you don't know, don't touch. Wish you luck.


Well, there are 171 different match-ups in Elite Mod and the meta changes with each patch, making arguments based on specific game replays quite unconvincing. Upkeep and pop values should not have anything to do with balancing different matchups in the same way that retreat speed, colour schemes and the cost of Tier 2 don't either.


Good that you make your position clear.

In conclusion,
1. Upkeep and pop value should remain fixed after standardizing. They can never be used as a balancing tool BECAUSE
- "The various game length makes it impossible to do properly as lowered upkeep has little effect if the unit in on the map for only a few minutes and higher upkeep becomes very expensive if the game is 30 minutes long."
- "Besides, req/power costs and unit stats are enough to balance units and it doesn't need to be made more difficult."

2. Individual match ups should never be considered when making balance decisions BECAUSE
- "Well, there are 171 different match-ups in Elite Mod and the meta changes with each patch, making arguments based on specific game replays quite unconvincing."
- "Upkeep and pop values should not have anything to do with balancing different matchups in the same way that retreat speed, colour schemes and the cost of Tier 2 don't either."
Telos
Level 2
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed 08 Aug, 2018 7:59 am

Re: 2.9 Patch: Upkeep and Pop Values.

Postby Telos » Wed 16 Jan, 2019 4:30 am

Superb write-up! It really clarifies a lot of the reasoning behind changes to pop and upkeep.

But I'm curious, if pop/upkeep standardization is based roughly on the cost of a unit, how will changing the cost of a unit based on balance decisions affect its pop/upkeep? It seems like "no, it won't" based on the discussion above and fair enough, if every adjustment to unit cost will also need to adjust its pop/upkeep then it seems like balancing would quickly become unwieldly.

But if pop/upkeep won't be considered in those adjustments then won't the unit's balance become out of whack over time in terms of its relative strength in that tier? Or would their pop/upkeep be revisited much later in a larger patch?
User avatar
Torpid
Moderator
Posts: 3334
Joined: Sat 01 Jun, 2013 12:09 pm
Location: England, Leeds

Re: 2.9 Patch: Upkeep and Pop Values.

Postby Torpid » Wed 16 Jan, 2019 7:11 pm

Telos wrote:Superb write-up! It really clarifies a lot of the reasoning behind changes to pop and upkeep.

But I'm curious, if pop/upkeep standardization is based roughly on the cost of a unit, how will changing the cost of a unit based on balance decisions affect its pop/upkeep? It seems like "no, it won't" based on the discussion above and fair enough, if every adjustment to unit cost will also need to adjust its pop/upkeep then it seems like balancing would quickly become unwieldly.

But if pop/upkeep won't be considered in those adjustments then won't the unit's balance become out of whack over time in terms of its relative strength in that tier? Or would their pop/upkeep be revisited much later in a larger patch?


As of the last 3/4 patches we have made a considered effort to adjust the percentage value of the upkeep relative to the cost per pop constant whether we are lowering or increasing the pop cost/base costs.

So, we haven't gone across all the units and standardised them all, but insofar as a unit is already on the basic 2.55req per pop if we start to adjust the pop we alter the upkeep to fit that.

But the actual base cost of something increasing shouldn't have any effect on the upkeep cost, because the units generally have higher pop if they have a higher base cost. Subcommanders and vehicles are the exception.

I actually think it is perfectly fine for vehicles to have lower pop/upkeep for their cost than normal because vehicles are easier to wipe than infantry squads and you have to spend time repairing them, two flaws that are not compensated, I don't think, by the fact that they don't bleed via having to replace lost models.

Subcommanders tend to be fine because they're force multipliers by nature - they cannot beat most squads 1on1, and they are more effective the more units are involved in an engagement. To make up for this downfall and still be legitimate they have lower than normal upkeep via very small pop costs and don't bleed.
Lets make Ordo Malleus great again!
User avatar
Torpid
Moderator
Posts: 3334
Joined: Sat 01 Jun, 2013 12:09 pm
Location: England, Leeds

Re: 2.9 Patch: Upkeep and Pop Values.

Postby Torpid » Wed 16 Jan, 2019 7:22 pm

And to the OP, no, there's nothing there to account for the fact that there are clear balance reasons for upkeep differences between a lot of the mentioned units.

Sentinels don't bleed yet offer ways to bleed enemies and exert pressure in t1. Makes sense they have higher upkeep to compensate for that.

Heretics bleed far more than comparable units in cost, hence they get lower than average upkeep.

Tyranid gaunts have the highest dps/hp per pop in the game. Hence why they have the highest upkeep per pop in the game...

In an effort to standardise such things how do you deal with the blatant balance implications that each have? Would you simply offset those imbalances into the original costing of the unit? Meaning, lower than average upkeep = lower base cost. Higher than average upkeep = higher base cost?
Lets make Ordo Malleus great again!
User avatar
Antandron
Level 2
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat 15 Jul, 2017 11:50 am

Re: 2.9 Patch: Upkeep and Pop Values.

Postby Antandron » Thu 17 Jan, 2019 9:59 am

Torpid wrote:I actually think it is perfectly fine for vehicles to have lower pop/upkeep for their cost than normal because vehicles are easier to wipe than infantry squads and you have to spend time repairing them, two flaws that are not compensated, I don't think, by the fact that they don't bleed via having to replace lost models.

Subcommanders tend to be fine because they're force multipliers by nature - they cannot beat most squads 1on1, and they are more effective the more units are involved in an engagement. To make up for this downfall and still be legitimate they have lower than normal upkeep via very small pop costs and don't bleed.

And to the OP, no, there's nothing there to account for the fact that there are clear balance reasons for upkeep differences between a lot of the mentioned units.

Sentinels don't bleed yet offer ways to bleed enemies and exert pressure in t1. Makes sense they have higher upkeep to compensate for that.

Heretics bleed far more than comparable units in cost, hence they get lower than average upkeep.

Tyranid gaunts have the highest dps/hp per pop in the game. Hence why they have the highest upkeep per pop in the game...

In an effort to standardise such things how do you deal with the blatant balance implications that each have? Would you simply offset those imbalances into the original costing of the unit? Meaning, lower than average upkeep = lower base cost. Higher than average upkeep = higher base cost?


All balance consideration would be applied to the base cost of the units and not to upkeep and pop. This makes balance easier as their are fewer variables to adjust. A unit is OP? Then either a. increase cost or b. reduce stats but not c. change pop and upkeep. A unit is UP? Then either a. decrease cost or b. increase stats but not c. change pop and upkeep. Determining if a unit is OP or UP could be done by taking a poll of high-level players and if there is a concensus, the base cost of the unit could be changed +/- 5 to 10% and the upkeep would automatically change the same amount.

e.g. let’s say that in 2.9 the Sentinel is 300req, 10 pop and 30upkeep. Upkeep is fixed at 10% of base cost for all T1 units and pop is fixed to be about 1 pop per 30req in this example. Players reach an agreement that the Sentinel is slightly OP and deserves a cost increase of 10%, so the new value is 330req, 11pop and 33upkeep.

The same would apply to vehicles and subcommanders if they were found to be either OP or UP. e.g the SM Dreadnought would, using this method, have a cost of 450/120, pop 17 and upkeep 43. If high-level players reached a general concensus that the SM Dreadnought was slightly UP, its cost could be lowered to 425/110 and then automatically the pop would lowered to 16 and the upkeep lowered to 40.

Heretics are indeed shit but they still cost 20 upkeep which is higher than the Ranger upkeep of 15. This method would reduce Heretics upkeep to 16 which is the same as Guardsmen and Ranger upkeep would increase to 24.

About Termagaunts and Hormagaunts, it is simpler to have their upkeep fixed like all other units and then ask “Is 240/0 the right price for Hormagaunts?” If they are found to be slightly OP at 240/0 then their price could be increased to 250/0 and their upkeep changed accordingly (which would be 1 upkeep so not worth the time).

Anything to do with faction specific balance such as the lack of Chaos Transports or the IG GM+Chimera reinforce and repair blob of death can be fixed by changing the base cost of units. e.g. 2.8 Chimera is 300/60, pop 10 and upkeep 26 and players reach a concensus that it is slightly OP because of the synergy with GM. Changing the stats is deemed to be a worse idea than increasing the cost, so the cost increases about 10% to 330/65 and the pop then increases to 11 and the upkeep increases to 28 or 29.

Another example is Rangers. Players could be asked to complete the following poll:

What is your current opinion on Rangers in patch 2.8?
a. OP
b. Slightly OP
c. OK
d. Slightly UP
e. UP

And if the results were:
a. 60%
b. 25%
c. 10%
d. 0%
e. 5%

Then whoever chose option e. should be banned for life and then as the majority opinion is for OP, the cost of Rangers could be increased 10% or their stats decreased, depending on whatever is considered the better option. If option b. was the majority then the cost increase could be about 5%, option d. the majority then a cost decrease of 5% and if option e. then a cost decrease of 10%

Telos wrote:Superb write-up! It really clarifies a lot of the reasoning behind changes to pop and upkeep.

But I'm curious, if pop/upkeep standardization is based roughly on the cost of a unit, how will changing the cost of a unit based on balance decisions affect its pop/upkeep? It seems like "no, it won't" based on the discussion above and fair enough, if every adjustment to unit cost will also need to adjust its pop/upkeep then it seems like balancing would quickly become unwieldly.

But if pop/upkeep won't be considered in those adjustments then won't the unit's balance become out of whack over time in terms of its relative strength in that tier? Or would their pop/upkeep be revisited much later in a larger patch?


My responses to Torpid should answer your questions. Changing upkeep is as simple as deleting a number is Copes Toolbox and replacing it with another number.
User avatar
Asmon
Level 4
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon 29 Apr, 2013 8:01 pm

Re: 2.9 Patch: Upkeep and Pop Values.

Postby Asmon » Thu 17 Jan, 2019 4:50 pm

I also think vehicles need a lower upkeep for the reasons Torpid mentioned. Plus they cannot capture points, which is often quoted as a trolling response but in competitive games actually matters a lot.

And to go on with the state of the meta, I don't think walkers and transports are dominating the game. It's not because most players use them that they are the best option.
User avatar
Crewfinity
Level 4
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue 03 Dec, 2013 2:06 am

Re: 2.9 Patch: Upkeep and Pop Values.

Postby Crewfinity » Thu 17 Jan, 2019 6:36 pm

Good discussion, but I disagree with a couple of arguments.

Population/Purchase Cost
I don't think its a good idea nor feasible to rebalance population values based on a unit's initial requisition cost.
I think that upkeep should be standardized to be X rate per population, and population values could use some review, butI think that Upkeep/Population vs Purchase/Upgrade Costs should be different balance levers since they cover different metrics:
Upkeep/Population: This should be a metric of how powerful/impactful a unit is on the field and how much ongoing value they provide
Purchase/Upgrade Cost: This should be a metric of how much a player needs to invest to field a unit/upgrades


Vehicle Upkeep
I disagree that vehicles should have lower upkeep relative to infantry units. Upkeep is intended to be a tax based on overall army strength, and a comeback mechanism that allows players to get back into the game after taking losses.

Although I agree that vehicles require support (both repair and positioning) that infantry squads do not, and they cannot cap points, they still make a massive impact in the game and act as massive force multipliers. Generally, whoever decides to invest in a vehicle first will be the player who sets the tempo of the game, and the other player is forced to react to that purchase. It's also pretty normal for the player with the early lead to be the one who is able to save up and purchase a vehicle, which they can then use to widen their lead.

Vehicles are intrinsically high-risk, high-reward, but if you keep them alive then you suffer no bleed and can easily save up for additional purchases. I think vehicles should actually have higher upkeep to allow for a bit more of a comeback mechanism in those situations.
User avatar
Antandron
Level 2
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat 15 Jul, 2017 11:50 am

Re: 2.9 Patch: Upkeep and Pop Values.

Postby Antandron » Fri 18 Jan, 2019 6:08 pm

Asmon wrote:I also think vehicles need a lower upkeep for the reasons Torpid mentioned. Plus they cannot capture points, which is often quoted as a trolling response but in competitive games actually matters a lot.

And to go on with the state of the meta, I don't think walkers and transports are dominating the game. It's not because most players use them that they are the best option.


Not being able to capture points is something that can be accounted for in the cost. If the sentinel was to be able to capture points then its cost would go up and its upkeep would go up also, but not the upkeep going up and the cost staying the same.
User avatar
Antandron
Level 2
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat 15 Jul, 2017 11:50 am

Re: 2.9 Patch: Upkeep and Pop Values.

Postby Antandron » Fri 18 Jan, 2019 6:14 pm

Crewfinity wrote:Good discussion, but I disagree with a couple of arguments.

Population/Purchase Cost
I don't think its a good idea nor feasible to rebalance population values based on a unit's initial requisition cost.
I think that upkeep should be standardized to be X rate per population, and population values could use some review, butI think that Upkeep/Population vs Purchase/Upgrade Costs should be different balance levers since they cover different metrics:
Upkeep/Population: This should be a metric of how powerful/impactful a unit is on the field and how much ongoing value they provide
Purchase/Upgrade Cost: This should be a metric of how much a player needs to invest to field a unit/upgrades


Vehicle Upkeep
I disagree that vehicles should have lower upkeep relative to infantry units. Upkeep is intended to be a tax based on overall army strength, and a comeback mechanism that allows players to get back into the game after taking losses.

Although I agree that vehicles require support (both repair and positioning) that infantry squads do not, and they cannot cap points, they still make a massive impact in the game and act as massive force multipliers. Generally, whoever decides to invest in a vehicle first will be the player who sets the tempo of the game, and the other player is forced to react to that purchase. It's also pretty normal for the player with the early lead to be the one who is able to save up and purchase a vehicle, which they can then use to widen their lead.

Vehicles are intrinsically high-risk, high-reward, but if you keep them alive then you suffer no bleed and can easily save up for additional purchases. I think vehicles should actually have higher upkeep to allow for a bit more of a comeback mechanism in those situations.


Hi Crewfinity. What do you mean with "Purchase/Upgrade Cost"?

One problem I've found it that upkeep can only apply to the base unit and not to upgrades given to a unit. So two identical base units, but one with no upgrades and the other upgraded with a plasma gun, missile launcher and flamer, have the same upkeep. Relic don't make this easy!
User avatar
Antandron
Level 2
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat 15 Jul, 2017 11:50 am

Re: 2.9 Patch: Upkeep and Pop Values.

Postby Antandron » Sat 19 Jan, 2019 8:06 am

I've created a Word document consisting of the first post in this thread and then final values that I arrived at and the method I used to get them. It should make sense (mostly).

http://www.mediafire.com/file/tdvknf9n4 ... alues.docx

Thoughts?

Return to “Balance discussion”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests