Unit Pricing

[ArtNJ]

(07-10-2012 02:48 AM)Kirenx Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 02:20 AM)aaronINdayton Wrote:  Sure, Runners get used a lot, because they're super good! But soldiers are the counter, soldiers destroy runners. The reason I personally build so many Runners is for map vision, I have to have vision of the majority of the map at all times, or else I build another runner. They're also great for medic/sniper diving, equally great when buffed and killing other Runners, taking wit spaces, covering enemy spawns, all kinds of amazing utility!

But, if you only build runners, you should lose. I rarely build runners for combat, only when I can spawn one and reach the conflict and do that 1 last point of damage to a heavy or soldier. Combat wise I roll the other units and compliment the fight based on the circumstance.

About the Super Units costing 7, I'd like to see how it'd work if they only cost 5 or 6, and I'd even be curious how the game worked if Runners were only 4 move/sight. But I'm sure all of this was hammered out in Beta. That's what the Beta was for, right? It's way too early to be asking for a Runner nerf, a Super Unit price drop, or anything else for that matter.

Soldiers do not completely counter Runners as it is fairly simple to just keep the Runner out of the Soldiers range, but I do understand what you are trying to say. I definitely would like to see the super at a cheapier cost too, just to see if they get more play. As for Beta's, while I always think a game is better port-beta testing, I have beta tested enough games to know they rarely come close to perfecting a game, in fact usually games improve more after release due to input from a larger playerbase.

True! However, you guys need to catch up to (and probably overtake I'm sure) the Betas in experience and skill before you argue for changes. Right now, just calling it like it is, there is a pretty big skill gap that was showing up in the leagues and our games. I'm 53-1. Its just an experience gap, but right now its very, very real.

So start forming and testing your opinions now, but dont get your position set in stone, you may feel differently in a bit.

[CombatEX]

(07-10-2012 02:47 AM)ArtNJ Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 02:42 AM)Kirenx Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 12:18 AM)CombatEX Wrote:  Selective reading much?

Apparently not as you just proved my point.

(07-10-2012 12:18 AM)CombatEX Wrote:  The units on the field are more important than the units being made because that reflects what is actually being used.

What???

CombatEX is saying that you start with a variety of heavy units, and how you move and use those is they key to the game. Because you start with the good stuff, to some degree what you need is support, scouting and flexibility to accompany the power that you have. So yes, runners are purchased and important, but as CombatEX is saying, the purchases dont reflect the as used on the battlefield importance.

Thanks for clarifying it to kirenx. That's exactly what I was getting at. And for the record I agree with your pawn analogy (though you probably could have inferred as much from my posts).

I like te game how it currently is. Yes you need to make a lot of scouts, but your actual unit comp at any given time will have stronger units which your scouts will support (or you will lose against most good players =P)

[stevewastaken]

(07-09-2012 02:29 PM)Szei Wrote:  Actually I think my point still stands. By the end of turn 14 josue has a massive advantage. They've both had 7 turns but josue's army value is 11 while his opponent's is a mere 5. You'll notice that his opponent's scout to other unit ratio to this point is 9-2 while josue's is 5-2.

I'm not sure what you are counting. It certainly isn't units produced, because I just recounted. Josue starts with a ratio of 6-1, which is even more runner heavy than the overall average.

Is this on-board units? That is a misleading way to view the board, because the player doesn't choose the units he starts with. In fact, I have a very good feeling OML designed it this way because if not given these units for free, the only units produced would be runners. Because a runner rush would most effectively be countered by mass runners. So instead of reducing the power of runners, they just handed out some free units to prevent all-out runner chaos (a mistake in my opinion).

(07-09-2012 02:29 PM)Szei Wrote:  His opponent went much more scout heavy and it cost him. Not only is he already way down in army supply due to his reliance on cost inefficient scout play but he also isn't able to bank as many wits.

No, his opponent lost because he used his runners less effectively. Several of Cani's runners move up the board without even getting an attack off. Like I point out before, Cani uses almost the exact same ratio to Runner:Other that Josue used. Cani made more units overall because he had to spend wits replacing lost units while Josue pushed up the board.

(07-09-2012 02:29 PM)Szei Wrote:  Scouts aren't too good!

They are good early because you need to see the board and medics and snipers havn't had time to move into protective formations.

They are good mid game because you can build them while also attacking with your starter units.

They are good late game because combat can leave even big units at 1 HP. Also scouts are the only units who can cross the board in time to actually support an enemy base assault.

Scouts are freakin' good.

(07-10-2012 12:18 AM)CombatEX Wrote:  Selective reading much? Scout's do not comprise 70%+ of the actual game. Once one player has gotten way ahead then the number of scouts made skyrockets, but for the actual part of the game before one person essentially has won, the fraction of scouts isn't that outrageous. The thing is, like in the supertitan game, the ratio of scouts to other units josue made was only 5-2

Again, I'm not sure what game you guys were watching. Josue starts 6-1 runners-other.

(07-10-2012 12:18 AM)CombatEX Wrote:  (keep in mind his opponent made 9 scouts so at least 1 or 2 of josue's scouts were made in retaliation. Really josue probably would have made something like 4-3 or 4-2 if not for his opponent overmaking NINE scouts).

This is a big part of the problem. The runner is the perfect counter to 4 unit types (runner, medic, sniper, special), while the only counter to runners is more runners.

(07-10-2012 12:18 AM)CombatEX Wrote:  The thing is, after josue got really far ahead by turn 14 or so, then the number of scouts made from that point spirals.

The example we are drawing from does not support this view. In fact, it is late game when both players pull out their special units, and Josue uses his Mobi to yank forward snipers.

You know what Cani could have done to counter the Mobi/Sniper combo? ...More runners.

(07-10-2012 12:18 AM)CombatEX Wrote:  The units on the field are more important than the units being made because that reflects what is actually being used.

Actually, units on the field means very little. I've played games where I was given a free sniper or medic, and never used a single Wit on them.

Production might not be the be-all-end-all, but it does show you what the player values most. If you like, you could attempt to tally up the damage, healing, kills, vision provided, bonus spaces taken, and base damage delt... but not all of those things are equal in value, and therefore it's extremely prone to bias. However, I suspect all but a few of those stats would heavily favor runners.

[Szei]

If you buff snipers and specials, runners certainly do not counter them. I especially question your 'runners counter specials' point. A buffed special can have 3-4 hp depending on the unit. Your opponent shouldn't let you get 2 runners within position to hit his special in the first place anyway, but even if they do, it will cost you 4 wits (moving and attacking) to deal 2 damage to that 3-4 hp unit. That's extremely ineffective.

You are right though that Gani (it looks like a C but I just checked, in chat it actually shows up as a G) did use his scouts ineffectively. However, keep in mind that by not attacking with them he actually wasn't using 2 wits (on a turn where he made 2 scouts). It's arguable that he would have been put in an even worse position if he had attacked with those scouts dealing 1 damage each to what, a soldier? A heavy? A buffed sniper?

Also you quote me saying "scouts aren't too good" and then say I'm wrong by talking about how scouts are good. Well yes, scouts are good. Good doesn't inherently mean 'too' good.

All of your following points are true though which is why good players do make a lot of scouts. That is not the part I disagree with.

"They are good early because you need to see the board and medics and snipers havn't had time to move into protective formations." Check.

"They are good mid game because you can build them while also attacking with your starter units." Check.

"They are good late game because combat can leave even big units at 1 HP. Also scouts are the only units who can cross the board in time to actually support an enemy base assault." Check.

What I disagree with is your statement that "units on the field means [sic] very little." I have yet to lose to a player who doesn't spend any money mobilizing their other units (though I'm by no means a great player, I play mostly masters). It's true that I often neglect using my free sniper because usually it's way out of position and mobilizing them to a useful point is expensive. But I most certainly make use of every other type of unit in conjunction with my scouts.

I think it's not so much that we disagree what is happening in the game (i.e. people making a lot of scouts, scouts are good, etc), rather we disagree on what we find makes a good game. I'll lay out my understanding of your opinion on the matter and where I agree/disagree.

You think good players make mostly scouts. I agree. The majority of the units I produce in most games are scouts for the reasons you state as well as some you left out (scouting info, picking off medics and snipers, harassing wit spaces, picking away at the opponent's base, etc).

You think this is a problem. I disagree. Why? Because like ArtNJ and CombatEX I feel that looking at the units being used is more important than the units being produced. Runners are the weakest unit and are often thrown far into the enemy lines. As a result they have low survivability. This means if you want to maintain map control you're going to want to replace your Runners to reveal more of the map as your Runners die. In essence your Runners die more often so you need to build them more often. If I lose all my soldiers, I'm going to want to rebuild some because you can't hold of Runners effectively with other Runners alone. You need units like Soldiers or Heavies to tank some damage.

"In fact, I have a very good feeling OML designed it this way because if not given these units for free, the only units produced would be runners."

You think that if players didn't start with free units, players would likely only build Runners. I disagree. It would depend on the map, but imagine this. Player 1 builds only runners while player 2 builds only soldiers. The only way player 1 can win going on the offensive while player 2 defends is if he can get enough runners up to player 2's base and attack it 5 times before player 2 can defend it. I'll concede that depending on the map this *could* be difficult (2 spawn maps with many base openings, on 1 spawn maps player 2 with soldiers shouldn't have much of a problem), but in general even as player 2 (which makes a huge difference in a rush scenario), player 2 should be able to get in a favorable enough position in time. If the soldier player gets in the way such that the runner player needs to engage, the runner player CAN NOT WIN by continuing to make runners. 2 wits to deal 1 damage to a unit with 3 health is going to take way too many wits to break through. And remember, this is being generous and assuming the runner spam player is player 1. As player 2 it would be even more difficult to pull off.

Long story short, even without free non-runner units, players would still need to make more than just runners.

Ultimately the game hasn't been out long enough to know the optimal unit composition (and it depends on position, map, etc), but I'm fairly certain you need more than just runners on the board to win the game.

If soldiers died as often as runners, you would see a much higher soldier production in addition to runners. Runner production is so high because, yes, they are good units just like soldiers, medics, etc, but they die more often so you need to remake them more often.

_________________________
BASIC POINTS
_________________________

- Unit Composition > Unit Production
- Mass Runner without other unit support =/= definitive winning strategy (more likely a losing strategy)
- Other units are necessary too but do not die as often so they do not need to be remade as often



Anyway, no more use in discussing this any further. If you still don't like the game the way it is, no further discussion is going to sway your opinion. I personally find the current state of the unit balance makes for an enjoyable experience, even if it means producing mostly runners, because despite this I still am using the other units too.

Ultimately we should wait for the metagame to evolve further before any drastic change is considered.

[Harti]

Just a random comparison with AW:

In competitive Advance Wars, the Infantry is considered the best unit. When I first heard that I went "lol, yeah, sure ... ... oh you're not kidding right?".
It's a weakling footsoldier with the lowest unit cost in the game (1000) - not durable, doesn't move too far and can't do any harm to vehicle units.

(Okay, Advance Wars is mostly about capturing buildings which only footsoldier units are capable of; the only alternative is the Mech unit which is a little more expensive, having less movement range... but all that is currently not the point, Infantry would be the best units nonetheless!)

They are deemed the best units because they can block paths, are unaffected by slowing down terrain, shield your units so that the opponent can't attack them very well and capture enemy cities - essentially things most other units could do just as well, however at next to no cost.

Spamming infantries couldn't win you games although they were the best units in the game. They just suck at facing tanks or any other unit bigger than them. They are able to cause a lot of headache, especially when properly shielding Artillery units from Tanks, but nothing more. The battle itself always got decided by somewhat heavier units.
Whenever you had some funds and spawn points open by the end of the turn, but not enough funds to get a Tank or something, always produced an Infantry to keep the unit count up as well.

What I mean to say is: Even if you claim that Runners are the best units in the game (and I would rather claim that Medics are), it doesn't mean that they're overpowered, just like Infantries in AW. They have a lot of benefits and have to be used frequently to see what's going on but neither are they durable, nor will they win you the game alone. You will have to bring a couple of other units with you. Runners may be the most common build by far but it's there for getting a cheap deal and has to stay that way. I'd also have wanted to see it at 4 rather but I don't think I'd go for them much, then.

[Kirenx]

Infantry in AW are dramatically different. Like you said they are one of only two units that can capture buildings. In addition, their weakness to other units is on a scale far beyond Runners, as the damage they can due in AW is almost nil to certain units, they can't even chip away of finish of certain types. It would seem there is a consensus that Runners are good, where opinions split is whether they are too good, or at the least good enough that they will be a bulk of player's forces, and if so is that a problem. Some individuals such as Szei have mistakenly assumed this means people think players will or should buy NOTHING but Runners which has not been anyones arguement on the subject to date. While I am more than willing to keep playing the game and see where it heads, initial impressions have definitely made it look like a Runner-heavy game, and in regards to long-term replayability, I can see how that may be an issue.

[stevewastaken]

Ok, the conversation has devolved into "why?" and when the conversation turns to this, it becomes extremely prone to bias. This is partly my fault, so lets back up to the facts, and the issue.

The player who some claim "won because he made fewer scouts" built the following:

Soldier:3
Medic:0
Heavy:0
Special:1
Sniper:2
Runner:15

Purely by the numbers, that's just not balanced.

(I'm going on vacation for 2 weeks. So this will be my last post for awhile)

[Kirenx]

(07-11-2012 03:39 PM)Szei Wrote:  For one, I spent a very small fraction of my posts referencing the issue compared to EVERYTHING ELSE that I said. You've completely missed the main points in my posts if you think this has been my focus which is rather disheartening to say the least.

The problem was your post was very long, yet said very little, and even less of anything that hadn’t been said before. In addition, much of it essentially was you agreeing with things Steve has said, yet then reaching a different conclusion based on a thought-process that has already been refuted. Then you yourself stated that there was "no more use in discussing this any further" so it seemed pointless to go any further taking apart your post.

(07-11-2012 03:39 PM)Szei Wrote:  You are also completely wrong when you say "which has not been anyones arguement on the subject to date."

You are correct here, I had misinterpreted what Steve said, but reading it again I was wrong as it does seem to be what he was suggesting. I disagree with Steve here, and it has never been my stance that Runners would ever be the only thing used, simply that their current cost-effectiveness sees them purchased and used far more than any other unit, and that other units fit much less versitile roles. While not certain, I can see how this may lead to a few very structured strategies eventually dominating the game. I and others have mentioned that these views are simply initial impressions. That said, you have to realize that the only data people have to go by is observations of their own games and any replays they can find. Thus discussions are going to be biased, like many forum discussions are and it is not that things you say are not "sticking" they simply may not correspond with the experiences of other players or interpretation of data.