I believe that the comm has the sweet spot for dmg and htpoints, what needs to be done is to just deny a comm surviving a nuke blast. Any commander in the AoE of a comm meltdown should die automatically, bu this needs to be done WITHOUT changing the comm nuke dmg (well, I guess it could be upped, upping it may not affect gameplay much). If comms can't be game winners, then people won't use them to actally attack a base. I think what a huge incentive for people to use their comm as a game-winning strategy is because they can. If both comms died, then we would still see offensive comms with comm as the counter. No one would want to engage comm vs. comm because that could only end in a draw. Just like TASpring.
What might be a useful counter strategy to Gunship sniping might be to make gunships fly at a higher altitude, above that of shields. A simple shield (mobile too) could be a good counter to gunship sniping. This is good because it doesn't deny gunships killing a comm (because shields can be taken down), but it gives time for the player to bring in planes.
This post has been edited by Strages: Feb 21 2007, 21:26 PM
I dont understand how offensive ACUS are particularily bad. Everyone can do it and unless its not a symmetrical map it does not give a very random advantage. The ACU is slow and has mediocre firing range. Getting killed by t3 or air (transports with t3/gunships) is a consequence of not countering what the enemy gets. A single t2 anti missile can ruin tactical missile assasinations as can a good patrol loop. Gunships are not cost efficient against anti air and leave the builder with a relatively deficient economy for a while. ACU's have a shield upgrade or two and/or can pile up shields/Amissiles near them.
Com killing counters make com killing strats inefficient. Early game offensive com often a must but you decide to protect him at a point when you see enemy making com killers or if you think he is/might.
There is not a tactic that cannot be countered and nobody can do anything that anybody else cannot do.
It's bad simply because of the fact that all medium-high level games on 5x5 maps would end in a draw.
I dont understand how offensive ACUS are particularily bad. Everyone can do it and unless its not a symmetrical map it does not give a very random advantage. The ACU is slow and has mediocre firing range. ... ACU's have a shield upgrade or two and/or can pile up shields/Amissiles near them. ... Com killing counters make com killing strats inefficient. Early game offensive com often a must but you decide to protect him at a point when you see enemy making com killers or if you think he is/might.
There is not a tactic that cannot be countered and nobody can do anything that anybody else cannot do.
1) Just because everyone can do it doesn't mean it's good or even intended, ala factory reclaim.
2) The upgrades are largely inconsequential by the time you can get them. Keep in mind not all factions can get the shield upgrades, even though tey are nice. The other things (save for resource allocation and Cybran cloaking) are just too expensive to be worth it. By the time you get them your comm will be picked off in seconds on the battlefield.
3) There are two counters to an offensive comm. You can a) turtle or b) offensive comm back. If you turtle you will get outeconomied, out teched, and generally pwnt all around. If you use your comm offensively we're right back to where we started.
If you don't use your commander offensively, your opponent will and gain a huge advantage. Offensive commanders create awkward stalements and trech warfare. Stray too far and the enemy will walk through and overcharge your base to death. Therefore, offensive commanders are always staring each other down. The second the fight goes bad for one side, it's just a quick hop to the enemy commander and KABOOM - draw. If the enemy withdraws their own commander at the same time, they will find themselves at an incredible disadvantage.
They aren't even that easy to fight back with tier 1, either. With a little bit of cover the commander will plow through anything. For some reason units prioritize the commander, and he's an excellent meatshield. Your own tier 1 units proceed to obliterate the enemy.
Early offensive commanders, where the only proper counter is your own commander, just don't create healthy gameplay.
This post has been edited by AngryZealot: Feb 21 2007, 23:24 PM
If you don't use your commander offensively, your opponent will and gain a huge advantage. Offensive commanders create awkward stalements and trech warfare. Stray too far and the enemy will walk through and overcharge your base to death. Therefore, offensive commanders are always staring each other down. The second the fight goes bad for one side, it's just a quick hop to the enemy commander and KABOOM - draw.
See, I think this is part slippery-slope logic. This isn't necessarily true - if a player cannot gain by using an offensive commander (in the case of if one kills the other, the game ends in a draw) then they won't. We play to win, we don't play to draw. We also don't play to lose, so it is arguable that using an offensive comm when there is no real incentive to do so, could give you a disadvantage, as a non-offensive comm could potentially out-produce the offensive player, flanking units around to his base and doing massive damage, while the offensive comm is being held at bay by the other players comm. This isn't a likely scneario, but I think it's a more logical progression than people going OffComm (Offensive Comm) in the case where comms can't survive a meltdown within OC range (assuming that an OffComm would kill the opponents commander using OC).
What I think the developers are not doing that they should be doing is looking at each tech level and examining where incentives lie and how they dictate gameplay. Players make decisions based on incentive to do so. If something costs more than it's worth, it won't be made, if something is worth more than it costs it will be made. A perfect balance would be every unit is worth what they cost to make, though, I don't know what the gameplay implications of that would be - it seems that it COULD be bland, but it could also be perfectly balanced.
See, I think this is part slippery-slope logic. This isn't necessarily true - if a player cannot gain by using an offensive commander (in the case of if one kills the other, the game ends in a draw) then they won't. We play to win, we don't play to draw. We also don't play to lose, so it is arguable that using an offensive comm when there is no real incentive to do so, could give you a disadvantage, as a non-offensive comm could potentially out-produce the offensive player, flanking units around to his base and doing massive damage, while the offensive comm is being held at bay by the other players comm.
Using your commander offensively gives you a huge advantage, and if you are playing to win, you'd be stupid not to use it. You can't tell if your opponent will do it, so you might as well, because if they do and you don't, you will probably lose. Once the comm is out in the field, it doesn't really slow production at all (you have engineers to build things too!). The commander helps secure additional mex points, and you end up with more mass. If your opponent attacks you early on with only units, there's plenty of time to scout it out and respond with your own units while still keeping pressure with your commander.
When done smartly, and with proper scouting, there's no real risk to using an offensive commander. Best case scenario is you win, worst case is the enemy marches up and draws the game. If you don't use an offensive commander, best case is your opponent doesn't either and the game proceeds like it should. Worst case is your opponent does (and any player playing to win will) and overwhelms your expansion and utterly outpaces you. At that point you have no choice but to draw, which is easy on small maps.
Let's put it another way. Offensive commander: win or draw. Defensive commander: draw or lose. Which would you pick?
Using your commander offensively gives you a huge advantage, and if you are playing to win, you'd be stupid not to use it. You can't tell if your opponent will do it, so you might as well, because if they do and you don't, you will probably lose. Once the comm is out in the field, it doesn't really slow production at all (you have engineers to build things too!). The commander helps secure additional mex points, and you end up with more mass. If your opponent attacks you early on with only units, there's plenty of time to scout it out and respond with your own units while still keeping pressure with your commander.
When done smartly, and with proper scouting, there's no real risk to using an offensive commander. Best case scenario is you win, worst case is the enemy marches up and draws the game. If you don't use an offensive commander, best case is your opponent doesn't either and the game proceeds like it should. Worst case is your opponent does (and any player playing to win will) and overwhelms your expansion and utterly outpaces you. At that point you have no choice but to draw, which is easy on small maps.
Let's put it another way. Offensive commander: win or draw. Defensive commander: draw or lose. Which would you pick?
I disagree with this line of thinking completely. There is NO point in doing this. You are suggesting that players MUST use their comm offensively, let's take a look at why this is a bad strategy and will quickly go away. So, two players, A and B, start a game on a small map. Player A uses a OffComm strategy from the get-go because he uses Zealot's line of thinking that if he doesn't assume his opponent is going to use his comm offensively he has one choice: lose (his opponent is playing to win, so according to Zealot, there is a 100% chance he will use an OffComm). Players A and B are both using OffComm's, the game ends in a draw, as Zealot suggests. If you look at the long-progression of games like this, the dominant outcome will be draws. Now, players A and B want to win, so what are they to do? They could play less experienced players who might not use OffComm's and win that way, but that's no fun - who wants to own noobs all day after all. They will have to change their strategy. If player A changes, and player B does not, then player A will just go back to using OffComm and creating draws. There is only one long-run choice to actually achieve a win - don't use an OffComm.
Note that this will only be true if GPG makes it so that comms will kill each other when they melt down, as I understand it, currently a comm can OC another comm and survive creating a HUGE incentive to use an OffComm. This is why I strongly believe that if Comm's couldn't survive killing another comm, this would end. The above logic explains why.
This post has been edited by Strages: Feb 22 2007, 02:30 AM
Just remove ACU weapon, make it upgradable. I know it's lame, you can still use it as super armored engineer to push with PD, but at least PD don't have 12k HP ...
I disagree with this line of thinking completely. There is NO point in doing this. You are suggesting that players MUST use their comm offensively, let's take a look at why this is a bad strategy and will quickly go away. So, two players, A and B, start a game on a small map. Player A uses a OffComm strategy from the get-go because he uses Zealot's line of thinking that if he doesn't assume his opponent is going to use his comm offensively he has one choice: lose (his opponent is playing to win, so according to Zealot, there is a 100% chance he will use an OffComm). Players A and B are both using OffComm's, the game ends in a draw, as Zealot suggests. If you look at the long-progression of games like this, the dominant outcome will be draws. Now, players A and B want to win, so what are they to do? They could play less experienced players who might not use OffComm's and win that way, but that's no fun - who wants to own noobs all day after all. They will have to change their strategy. If player A changes, and player B does not, then player A will just go back to using OffComm and creating draws. There is only one long-run choice to actually achieve a win - don't use an OffComm.
Note that this will only be true if GPG makes it so that comms will kill each other when they melt down, as I understand it, currently a comm can OC another comm and survive creating a HUGE incentive to use an OffComm. This is why I strongly believe that if Comm's couldn't survive killing another comm, this would end. The above logic explains why.
I partly agree with your argument, but I don't think it's necessarily true that if you use an offensive commander it will always result in a draw. For example, if players A and B go offcomm against each other, and A gains the upper-hand, B may or may not succeed in creating a draw. Because of this uncertainty, I believe people will still use offcomm in the long run becaused there is still the possibility of winning.
So it would be offcomm = draw or win, losing offcomm =no-offcomm = draw or lose. It's the fact that it will not always end in a draw that will force people to use it.
Mind you, I think making a decision based on the outcomes on 5x5 or 10x10 maps might be more of a faulty generalization than anything else. I also don't think that using the ACU as an offensive element in-game is a bad thing: He was given weapons after all.
I disagree with this line of thinking completely. There is NO point in doing this. You are suggesting that players MUST use their comm offensively, let's take a look at why this is a bad strategy and will quickly go away. So, two players, A and B, start a game on a small map. Player A uses a OffComm strategy from the get-go because he uses Zealot's line of thinking that if he doesn't assume his opponent is going to use his comm offensively he has one choice: lose (his opponent is playing to win, so according to Zealot, there is a 100% chance he will use an OffComm). Players A and B are both using OffComm's, the game ends in a draw, as Zealot suggests. If you look at the long-progression of games like this, the dominant outcome will be draws. Now, players A and B want to win, so what are they to do? They could play less experienced players who might not use OffComm's and win that way, but that's no fun - who wants to own noobs all day after all. They will have to change their strategy. If player A changes, and player B does not, then player A will just go back to using OffComm and creating draws. There is only one long-run choice to actually achieve a win - don't use an OffComm.
Exactly!
The top players want to win. The top players will do what they have to do to win. The most powerful way to do that right now is with an offensive commander. A "gentlemen's agreement" to not use it is coping behavior that suggests a deeper flaw in the game. It's a fundamentally broken mechanism that needs adjustment. Even though every game might end in a draw, there's nothing to lose by going offensive, and that's a problem. I don't know how to explain it any clearer .
This post has been edited by AngryZealot: Feb 22 2007, 05:04 AM
.
What might be a useful counter strategy to Gunship sniping might be to make gunships fly at a higher altitude, above that of shields. A simple shield (mobile too) could be a good counter to gunship sniping. This is good because it doesn't deny gunships killing a comm (because shields can be taken down), but it gives time for the player to bring in planes.