Unit Pricing

[Kirenx]

Loving the game. Something I have noticed though is generally the best units to buy are soldiers and runners. The problem seems to be that unit costs try to scale, yet the more expensive units are not necessarily better. The Heavy costs 4, yet with less movement, is often not as effective as cheaper units. In addition the special units are expensive enough that most games end before they get a chance to come out. This is a shame as the special units are what make each team truly unique. Any thoughts?

[Harti]

I wouldn't agree on everything you say. It is true that Soldiers are usually a good buy, if not the best buy in a cost-benefit point of view.

Heavies are awesome provided the circumstances allow for them. In a few games I nearly lost, my opponent got the early upper hand and then threw TWO of them at me. Luckily, I was able to spot them in time and saved up some wits to trap them either with Snipers or Specials. When buffed to 5 HP they become a nasty threat, which is why I usually try to knock those out ASAP.


As for the Special Units: Well, I think OML did a really good job there. They used to cost 8, are now at 7 and seen much more often than before. This is actually quite cool because you can throw them in at some times. But usually you just won't have the time to because you could win without them as well. This, again, accounts towards gameplay balance.
They are not useless. If you set up your tactics that way, you can manage to pull them out of the hat quite early, like in your fourth-ish turn (basically depends on what your opponent does). They still make a difference. But not too much. I like that.

[Kirenx]

I don't deny Heavies have their place, but at the current price point, I just don't see them having the same cost-value ratio as most of the other units.

I don't think the special units are useless, I just think they have too narrow a role, allowing them to only shine in a very limited amount of circumstances. Again the only reason I have any issue with this is that the special units are the sole unique gameplay aspect for each team and if they are only going to see play a quarter or less of games played, it feels to me like we lose out on the individualism of each team.

[Kamikaze28]

(07-08-2012 06:46 AM)Kirenx Wrote:  I don't deny Heavies have their place, but at the current price point, I just don't see them having the same cost-value ratio as most of the other units.

I don't think the special units are useless, I just think they have too narrow a role, allowing them to only shine in a very limited amount of circumstances. Again the only reason I have any issue with this is that the special units are the sole unique gameplay aspect for each team and if they are only going to see play a quarter or less of games played, it feels to me like we lose out on the individualism of each team.

Special Units, or race choice if you will, determine your enemies strategy greatly at higher levels. You will probably not go into a battle of attrition against Feedback or Scallywags, a Scrambler can reverse an offensive quite severely and a well placed Bombshell can hold quite a large piece of a map on his own.
Mobi is a very different case - there are one-hundred-and-one shenanigans you can pull with him, but I'll let you find out for yourself ;-)

Also, the teams aesthetics and the themes of the maps they are accompanied by are quite unique to me.

[Harti]

Ah, so I take it you're from Hero Academy as well.

Yeah, it's kind of a tough migration from 'teams with distinct unique units' to 'an actually balanced game'.


Sarcasm aside - what would be your suggestions to get away from that? Should there be a second special unit? Or an ability to trigger when a certain amount of units got destroyed (cp. Advance Wars)?
I'm unable to think of a "more individualism, still balanced" solution but I think OML would be happy to hear your founded ideas.


I agree with you on the Heavy part, I don't like to buy them either because I think they're overpriced. At 3, however, they would be too cheap and an instabuy (hard to counter, just spam them and you're fine).

[Kirenx]

I would be interested to see heavies at a cost of 3, given their speed I still think on all but the smaller maps soldiers and runners will still have a big enough mobility advantage that spamming heavies won't be the go to strategy.

As for the special units, I think the price point should not excced 5, but a limit of one on the field at once should be established.

[Szei]

I haven't played enough games to really judge, but I think Heavy at 4 is fine how it is. More often I would rather field soldiers, but it isn't uncommon that I need to bring out a Heavy for certain situations.

Here is something you have to consider. Since actions cost wits, attacking a unit with two of your own, say a scout and a soldier or a soldier and a soldier to deal 3 damage costs TWO wits. Sure buying a heavy costs more initially, but it only takes ONE wit instead of two to deal the 3 damage. The point is you can't just compare the production costs to ascertain how cost-effective a unit actually is. Of course, heavies also have a smaller movement range so you do need to spend extra wits to maneuver them, but you get the basic idea. Heavies certainly have their place in this game even at 4 wits. At 3 wits they would just be too good.

As for team uniqueness, I have to admit that coming from Starcraft 2 at first I was disappointed at the lack of distinction between the factions. However, two things. 1. With the teams being largely identical, there is less potential for imbalance. 2. When you do have long enough games the unique units really do make the factions play differently. In the end I've decided I like the way things are. Choosing a faction is still important in the event that the game reaches the later stages, but it's also easier for OML to balance the game.

I personally am against adding another layer to the game (Like CO powers). I think the game works well with the current systems in place. I wouldn't be opposed to maybe adding a second cost ~5 unique to each faction at some point down the road.

[stevewastaken]

(It's a bit early to say for sure but...)

My initial impression is that Soldiers are a little too cost effective.

But Runners are WAY too cost effective.

Runners are problematic for a few reasons. One of the biggest reasons is that the best counter to a runner, is another runner. So there is no sort of 'rock-paper-scissor' counter. If your opponent throws scissor, you better repeatedly throw a scissor of your own to stop it. So strategy immediately gets stale in regards to this.

They also have so much move that you can see virtually the whole board within one move away from spawn. This almost makes Fog pointless, so long as your opponent knows to use runners. This is also so much move that they can often be in position to attack the enemy base after 1 move from their own spawn. If you think about it, a fifth of your opponent's base health can be taken with an investment of only 4 wits. That's crazy.

And they're just so freaking cheap. 1 wit to spawn means you can almost always mobilize a runner so long as a major battle isn't taking place. The units that cost 3 or more wits require you to save up, or dedicate an entire turn to getting them out. This is doubly problematic for Snipers, because not only do you have to invest all these wits into getting them, they also only have 1 health. So you have to ALSO dedicate a bunch of wits into forming a wall so that the sniper can't get picked off by a runner. And then what? Pushing forward with this formation is going to take forever, as the sniper has move:1 and you also have to advance all the other units needed to protect it.

My gut feeling on this, is that Runner move speed should be reduced to 4. They'd still have more move speed and be cheaper than the soldier.

[Szei]

I don't think Runners are overpowered. They are cheap in terms of production cost but they are quite pricey in terms of their cost to use. A runner takes 2 wits to deal 1 damage whereas a soldier takes 2 wits for 2 damage and a heavy takes 2 wits for 3 damage (This is all assuming you need to close distance between your unit and the enemy's unit which is where the runner's 5 move speed makes a difference in the first place). If your opponent takes a defensive stance with soldiers you're going to have to throw a lot of runners at them, and in the process get very cost inefficient wits usage in your attacks. You also have to consider that a turn spent making a runner is a turn where you can't make any other units. So while you're spamming out runners your opponent has an opportunity to start getting out better units. If they shut down your runner play you're then at a massive disadvantage since you've been using your wits less efficiently in your engagements (see above).

I think runners fit a good position in the current game. If you over produce them you'll eventually get crushed by your opponent's superior units. But when used correctly you can obtain a lot of scouting info, pick off undefended units, or deal a little base damage.

[Kirenx]

As Stevewastaken said, it is early yet and these are all initial impressions. But I see where he is coming from about Runners. All their mobility aside, their low damage does not feel like much of a weakness as they can one shot medics, snipers, and other runners. It does feel so far as if Runners and Soldiers are requirments no matter the match, and every other unit is situational utility. This in itself may not be a bad thing, it simply feels like it may limit the varity of strategies that are viable in the long run.