Design Directions & Routes

[Polo]

In Azzer's Design Directions thread ( http://www.bushtarion.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1979 ), I said:

I'd like all units and technologies to be looked at and rebalanced/changed. Nothing as extreme as Sordes' has suggested in the past (ie. completely redoing everything from scratch). I suggest keeping most of the current routes but changing a few things to make the game seem more "fresh" for the more old school players. Unit changes that would allow different playstyles, etc.

I'd also like to address the "useless" routes/units in the game so every route is worth playing and every unit is worth buying in conjunction with the above suggestion.

This is also something that I know a lot of players tend to agree with.

Anyway, Azzer then spoke to me on msn saying he agreed in principle. However, first I/we would need to come up with a summary of all the current routes, showing their strengths and weaknesses as well as seeing if there are too many routes doing the same thing or not enough routes doing certain things, etc. etc.

Another thing Azzer said was:

I think a route/sub-route needs a purpose/goal/aim in mind, for it to be good - otherwise it's just a random collection of units and you can't balance it with other routes.

This I completely agree with, but I don't think is the case with some routes in the game currently (namely the Fantasy routes).

So, I've come up with a table showing off the different features of each route (in my opinion) and would like some feedback from the community as well as Azzer on whether the table is entirely accurate, and what can be addressed to balance the routes/units and give each a distinct purpose like Azzer said in his quote above.

Unfortunately, I can't attach a PDF bigger than 19.5kb here (Azzer, you should change that!) so I've uploaded it to nobreakspace: http://bush.nobreakspace.com/routesummary.pdf

Edit: I've uploaded version 2 to http://bush.nobreakspace.com/routesummaryv2.pdf
Edit: Version 2.1 http://bush.nobreakspace.com/routesummaryv2.1.pdf

 

[Garrett]

I like that it's in pdf and color coded... real easy to pass off at work atm


that being said... I definitely would like to see azzer weigh in on your compliation because define 'flak wars'... since you have 'flak wars' and 'early game' is flak wars pre units or the first unit? if it's pre units... then everything should be green?

I like what you've done but would like more clarification of the column classifications and overall structure as I don't want to debate back and forth on your formatting or start down a tangent and then find out we've been discussing for 3 pages about ultimately nothing.

 

[Polo]

define 'flak wars'... since you have 'flak wars' and 'early game' is flak wars pre units or the first unit? if it's pre units... then everything should be green?

It says at the bottom of the column: flak wars is tier 1 and 2 units and early game is tier 3 and 4 (to an extent. CW probably wouldn't count as early game, etc).

I like what you've done but would like more clarification of the column classifications and overall structure as I don't want to debate back and forth on your formatting or start down a tangent and then find out we've been discussing for 3 pages about ultimately nothing.

Well, there's a key at the bottom. I decided not to go into any more detail than 4 different "levels" as it's mostly subjective.

 

[rooney]

excellent work polo. this kind of thing could be very useful in the wiki/manual as well since it shows clearly what is good at what so new players would have that info right there. also though, i think a tech cost and unit cost should be added. for example, the striker tech tree, imo very cheap techs (apache tech is roughly the same as cloners???) but the actual units are very expensive, even more so that robo (not including rexes ofc) but other than that brilliant work

 

[Garrett]

Ok then sir... since you wanted to point condescendingly to your key...

if 'Hooligan' and 'Heavy Thug' are the first 2 units of ALL thugs routes how can they be different color for use in flak wars?

so I'll say this instead. Take down the pdf, revise it for errors, and then post it back.

thanks.

 

[Dark_Angel]

Ok then sir... since you wanted to point condescendingly to your key...

if 'Hooligan' and 'Heavy Thug' are the first 2 units of ALL thugs routes how can they be different color for use in flak wars?

so I'll say this instead. Take down the pdf, revise it for errors, and then post it back.

thanks.

I'm still reading the summary and what is most obvious just opening the file is that Polo has put a sizable amount of time and effort into this. For that he deserves some respect; he has already pointed out it isn't perfect, that is the entire point of this thread.

Chill out :/

 

[Garrett]

Ok then sir... since you wanted to point condescendingly to your key...

if 'Hooligan' and 'Heavy Thug' are the first 2 units of ALL thugs routes how can they be different color for use in flak wars?

so I'll say this instead. Take down the pdf, revise it for errors, and then post it back.

thanks.

I'm still reading the summary and what is most obvious just opening the file is that Polo has put a sizable amount of time and effort into this. For that he deserves some respect; he has already pointed out it isn't perfect, that is the entire point of this thread.

Chill out :/

go back and read my first post. I said i liked it. please take your own advice.
if you spend 15 years on something and it's wrong... it's still wrong.

p.s. please try to keep on topic. the reason i wanted clarification to begin with is so we could have a discussion.

POLO WANTS A DISCUSSION NOT A THREAD FAWNING OVER HIS PDF

 

[Max]

Overall, an excellent way to address a very complex problem, well done Polo

I would mention a couple of things:

1) The stunbot route is actually an excellent way to play solo, so I would place this at least at 'OK' if not 'Good', due to its ease at stopping flak attacks.

2) Also, a bit undue harshness on Attack Dogs I think, classing them as 'Impossible' to play mid-round I think they eat flak like no tomorrow...

But those are just opinions, naturally, so it's never going to be easy to quantify.

Nevertheless, I think you've done marvellously to try and solve the situation!

 

[Dark_Angel]

I agree with Maxi, you've done a brilliant job tacking a very complex issue.

Thug being my main area of expertise, I agree with your analysis of thug-PB as being "bad" range/medium. As we've discussed already this wasn't as much of an issue before the introduction of Fantasy, Thug-PB, even with TLs, is now quite bad generally range (vamps owning RANGE, gargs doing a similar amount of damage MEDIUM).

There are too many routes that own thug, now, and I think this needs to be addressed when re-balancing goes ahead. Personally I'd like to see thug do more armour damage. Thug-PB sucks vs armour, and as well as the many armour-based routes there already were, the addition of vamps has seen yet another route that Thug sucks against because so "we" do such crap armour damage. (PBs doing an "ok" amount but firing much later than vamps and most other armour based routes).

And yes, this is made up for slightly in that thug is a cheap route. But that advantage has, as I've said, diminished with the introduction of fantasy.

 

[Twigley]

There are too many routes that own thug, now, and I think this needs to be addressed when re-balancing goes ahead. Personally I'd like to see thug do more armour damage.

Thugs are not MEANT to be units that do heavy AD.
They are supposed to be Health / Flak killers.
They do more AD and they are too overpowered.
They already kill a route without them firing back ffs!

Thug-PB sucks vs armour, and as well as the many armour-based routes there already were, the addition of vamps has seen yet another route that Thug sucks against because so "we" do such crap armour damage. (PBs doing an "ok" amount but firing much later than vamps and most other armour based routes).

You are looking at this with only half the story.
Mass PB rape the vamp route early on and i wouldnt even be scared of gargs if you had enough of them.
Again, thugs are not meant to beat all these routes.
They beat POM without POM firing ... they are invincible early on ... they pwn RPG, they pwn Sorc, they even pwn striker, puppets, ranger, badly set up SA, have low eta's, cheap to tech etc etc.

And yes, this is made up for slightly in that thug is a cheap route. But that advantage has, as I've said, diminished with the introduction of fantasy.

^ BS.
Simple as.
I've played thug or pom in every round since fantasy was introduced and i can say that either :

A) Thug is a pain in the backside for a POM. Bikers are so f*ing stupid!
B) Thus is so easy to play and beat anyone in mass. Just ask those against my 100m pb, 50m jeep, 50m biker in r28 or so when we where not even the top ally.


Overall thug is absolutely fine and give it any more power and as a POM i might just cry and in future rounds i might just cry with joy at going back to thug!





P.s - good work polo but few things i disagree with in that pdf of yours which ill comment on later.

 

[f0xx]

Twigley is 100% correct. DA is... well not so correct.

I will post my thoughts about unit/route balance later when I have the time to write a completely post.

For now I would like to congratulate Azzer for finally bringing this discussion and I would like to ask everyone to please STAY ON THE ****IN' TOPIC. This is a thread of highest priority and importance, so please do not ruin it with your personal wars.

 

[Azzer]

I think the only posts that should appear in this thread are ones directly addressing peoples own experiences (playing as, or playing against) certain sub-routes/units, and trying to assess the routes. A discussion on whether units should or should not be changed, or arguments that go in circles, will need to be trimmed to seperate threads so we can get an actual analysis of the routes going, and hopefully build up eventually towards as close to an agreement as we can get (there will always be some disagreement in the practicality of sub-routes in certain situations - in which case it should be left to people who have genuine experience to post their own findings in an intelligent manner and leave it at that).

Polo's covered a lot of "areas" that a route or unit can be analysed in, here's my own little list brainstormed as I type for things to think about when considering a route's integration in to the game;

* Solo route? Alliance route?
* Good for Defending? Good for Attacking?
* Good for saving land? Good for stealing land?
* Quick to tech? Slow to tech?
* Early game/mid-game/late game "advantages/disadvantages"?
* Particular sub-routes it is weak against (ignoring exceptions of "extreme/unique" unit ratios) - routes you'd avoid fighting against in most situations.
* Particular sub-routes it is strong against - routes you'd target/not be afraid of.
* Difficulty for a new player? Does it require a lot of knowledge/skill to play this sub-route?
* Is it an extreme specialist route? Specialises in uber last tick defence? Specialises in stealing land? Specialises in stealth-trickery? Hardcore armour destroyer? Mega health-flak? Or is it pretty balanced/generalised?
* Does this sub-route have it's own "place", or is it pretty much identical to another sub-route?

All things that should be looked in to when trying to "judge/analyse" each sub-route.

etc.

 

[Mattheus]

Shouldn't another category be whether it's a viable route to go without the punit? That's a big part of a lot of peoples decision making process when picking their route, especially when solo. Obviously not so much for allied players, any large weaknesses your route has can be compensated for by other members. But it's still one of the first questions you ask a newbie when they ask what route to go - whether they'll be getting the purchase unit or not. So if the routes are potentially gonna be changed around a bit, then this shouldn't be forgotten about.

 

[Garrett]

Shouldn't another category be whether it's a viable route to go without the punit? That's a big part of a lot of peoples decision making process when picking their route, especially when solo. Obviously not so much for allied players, any large weaknesses your route has can be compensated for by other members. But it's still one of the first questions you ask a newbie when they ask what route to go - whether they'll be getting the purchase unit or not. So if the routes are potentially gonna be changed around a bit, then this shouldn't be forgotten about.

absolutely. definitely keep that in consideration. it's not necessarily the biggest point, but a useful one.

 

[rooney]

i think if the routes get a major overhaul, then ALL route should be playable without the p-unit, but the p-units should be excellent to keep players getting them. kinda like SA is now. mass assassin can work very well against strikers and some robo set-ups, but mass SA is still generally a prefered option. i dont like how a newbie without full understanding could play puppets and not realise he needs the p-unit then quit the game cos he is getting raped left right and centre

 

[Polo]

Thanks for all the feedback! I've taken most of it onboard and updated the summary slightly: http://nobreakspace.com/routesummaryv2.pdf

 

[Polo]

Based on this:

Positive things in the table should be green. Negative - red, I think that is the idea of your table?

When a route cannot be rushed, it is a positive thing, so it should be green instead of red.

Just some feedback

I've updated the rushable column so it's pretty much inverted (as well as adjusting my opinion on a few of the routes).

http://nobreakspace.com/routesummaryv2.1.pdf

 

[cb1202]

First off, I have had really great success with mil RPG as a solo. Just depends how you set up your units. If you play defensively and do not just mass RPG, then it is a great route to solo with.

Also, snipers do loads of Health damage. They are one of the most underused units in the game. They might have a higher init than the unit designed to kill them, but with the proper set up they can do lots of HD.

I will look into other units, but thats what I notice off the top of my head.

 

[No-Dachi]

Played by the right person, I guess any route can be played solo. Even Extremists if you make sure your AR stays high enough, and you have active pNAPs. However this discussion should be based around what is achievable for normal players, not the elite.

As for the thread: great initiative by Polo. I'll try to do a more indepth post later on, but this is definitely a good discussion for getting things going.

 

[LAFiN]

Extremists are an absolutely impossible route to play in any non-top alliance. You'd seriously have to be online 20 hours a day to send out and last tick defend yourself. You certainly can not attack anyone by yourself.

I've had experience with basically every route other than Thugs.

VDs - Need a buff. Maybe increase their init a few, but also let them fire Mid and Close?
Robo - All 3 are playable solo/allianced.
SA - Balanced. Good solo/allianced.
RPG - Great for attacking, good defending, need to be active. Not my first pick to be solo with, but I've heard it can be done.
POM - Great, even with Bikers killing them without any damage back.
Vamp - Not bad. Can't think of anything to change.
Bunker - Boring? Definitely a solo route. Still waiting for an alliance of all bunkers

The rest of the routes I've messed around with in PWs, but wouldn't really say I'm very good with them, so I'll let others decide.