FrangibleCover wrote: urogard wrote:
FrangibleCover wrote:Which all sounds fine when one is writing it on Wikipedia (which isn't a dictionary, but I'm sure you knew that) but what it actually means is that by your definition the game will be balanced when all ~2000 units are equally desirable and nothing 'counters' anything else. Which basically removes all skill from the game except micro and all interest from the game entirely. You'd have to destroy the realism of the game to achieve anything close to it.
Also since apparently to you wikipedia is cannot be correct by default:https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... o-Extremes
Do you both go through the list of logical fallacies to see which ones you haven't used yet and which one you'll use next? Because I think we're at like 6 or 7 already.
In good faith, I actually thought you meant that the definition of balance that you posted was one that you actually believed to be true. If not, please provide another so that I can understand where you're coming from. Throwing out lists of logical fallacies isn't actually an argument, it's what people who think they're clever do when it looks like they're losing an argument on the internet. I expected better of you. Again, if you read the website you linked you'd have found this page: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... -Smart-Ass
I'm glad we both agree on this part
FrangibleCover wrote:and nothing 'counters' anything else
stretches the balancing debate into the absurd.
I've already posted my definition of game balance. I just threw in that wiki link because for melanin it apparently was too difficult to understand the concept:
Any situation where you pay less or more for a unit than other equivalent units cost is an imbalance by definition.
Or he was trolling, which is actually my current theory on his participation.
FrangibleCover wrote:These units are all different and some are better than others, but all are ten points.
And the better ones result in reduced in additional penalties (esp the ones with 2FAV), but that's immaterial to my next point.
Which additional penalties would these be? None of the 2FAV transports come with availability reductions so you must mean something else.
Bison/Grizzly does reduce availability for starters
Any change in price for any of these units you posted would not reduce inconsistencies, therefore price equilibrium has been reached
FrangibleCover wrote:Your thesis indicates that these units are inconsistent, therefore not balanced, therefore require changes.
, therefore no changes are possible without disrupting the equilibrium and making the inconsistencies worse.
Okay, let's just take two of the units then, at the extreme ends (oh no, another reductio ad absurdum, better point it out so I look like an idiot). HMV vs. ASLAV-PC. ASLAV has a better gun, goes faster, has armour, has 2FAV and SAV and can swim. HMV has better autonomy and is slightly smaller. Both units are prototype and the ASLAV comes with far superior infantry in the form of Commandos 90. Not that that matters, we're comparing unit for unit. You believe that these units are not inconsistent?
To re-phrase what I said because either I explained it wrong (I've highlighted it again) or it's a very complicated concept.
Their current price reflects their capability to the best possible extent. There's no way of changing their price that wouldn't result in the situation being made worse than it currently is.
If we didn't have a 5 pts increment system then yes, I'd believe that these units are inconsistent at being priced identically. But alas that's the best we can do.
As opposed to Malka/Pion which are 30 pts overpriced vis a vis the M110/A2.
Reducing its price would reduce the inconsistency.
Oh, nobody is arguing about a price reduction. Only about making the prices identical, which they shouldn't be because if they were the units would be inconsistent. Throwaway showed you the higher fire rate and while I don't really mind the ammo count thing it's still true.
1. You're the first person to not outright deny they deserve a price buff, really go through the other people's posts and you'll see that that's true. Everyone was raging on about how their price difference is justified.
2. Showing a stat difference and showing that the armory assigns a value to that stat are two different things.
It's literally the reason why I linked the ASF inconsistency thread, to show that there are stats in units which are ignored for pricing purposes.
Also I've already shown with all the other arties I posted that RoF is not included as a price-relevant stat.
If said stat does affect the price, as you claim, we should be able to quantify it to some MEASURABLE extent.
I'm glad that someone put forward actual evidence at least once, makes it so much nicer to debate actual units than some abstract theorycrafting.
Here's the counterevidence:
Let's have a look at 5 pts tracked vehicles.
No, let's not. If you want to engage in conversation about evidence you actually have to tackle my evidence instead of making your own.
I did address it in detail, here's a summary:
Some overperformance is dealt through reduction in availability
The remaining differences are a consequence of the 5pts increment system where increasing or reducing the price for any of the units you mentioned would not make the balance situation better, it would make it worse. Therefore the best available balance has already been reached.
The units start from having 0 Top Armor (OT M-5, Zachlam)
Some having more than 1 gun (Buffalo IV, LVT-4)
To the overwhelming majority with 1 Armor all around
Some also being amphibious
Some having more than 1 gun (M113A1 30/50, Nana-San Shiki, OT M-60P, Bardelas)
Then lots of units having 2 Front Armor (ZSD-63C, Topas, SPW-50PK, M/113G)
Quite a few having 3 Front Armor (AMX line, FV4333, M113A3) [FYI only NATO]
Some having 2 Front Armor and extra guns (K200, BTR-D)
And one single unit with 2 FAV and 3 HMGs that's almost universally agreed as being underpriced (Zelda)
Pretty huge spectrum of units. But we need to remember that adding 5 pts [the minimum] would increase the price by 100%. So that's how big the difference in performance has to be before you can slap a price nerf onto any unit.
The M113A1 Minigun which costs 10 pts actually deals less damage than any of the vehicles which have more than 1 gun and gets absolutely wrecked by any of the vehicles with more than 1 gun and 2 FAV or more.
So if BTR-D can be 5 pts, so should the M113 Minigun. And there's no way around not making Zelda cost 10 pts in its current config.
So there we have it, at least 2 units which are identified by hard numbers and are performing so far outside their intended price-level that an adjustment to their cost is perfectly warranted.
See, now you're applying subjective balance from your own experience.
Showing that DPS output on a 10-pts vehicle is lower than DPS output on a 5-pts vehicle is subjective?
DPS calculations are not subjective, they are very much objective [number of hit rolls x accuracy x damage]
Armor effects are very much objective as well.
FrangibleCover wrote:You and I both know the Zelda is OP, fine. Why isn't the FV4333 considered OP? It has much more armour than the majority of its competitors, it's amphibious and it's fast.
Because difference between 1FAV and 2FAV is HUGE. You need 140+ pts tanks to one-shot 2FAV vehicles at long distances and they survive low caliber RPGs and LAWs.
The difference between 2FAV and 3FAV is marginal to neglibible by comparison. 3FAV still gets one-shotted by CG or any other mid-level RPG and requires only 1 extra AP (+175m) on those 140+ pts tanks to get one-shotted.
Matter of fact, there's only ONE single infantry-carried launcher in the game (M72A4 LAW, NATO) that can one-shot 2FAV vehicles but can't one-shot 3FAV vehicles (all of which are on NATO side anyway). So for the entire infantry tab, it's irrelevant whether a vehicle has 2FAV or 3FAV.
Even the HE damage difference is minimal [0.3 for 3FAV vs 0.4 for 2FAV]
There's no data whatsoever that supports the theory that amphibiousness or speed is considered a price-relevant stat.
IF you want to claim it is, then it shouldn't be hard to find examples.
It's the same situation with Planes and ToT, people think it does matter in the price when actually there's data that disproves that theory.
FrangibleCover wrote:Why isn't the K200 OP, it's basically a mini Zelda?
Zelda has 2 guns with 20% accuracy
K200 has 1 gun with 10% accuracy and slightly bigger range.
I'm not 100% sure how the formula for accuracy scaling goes but I'd guess the DPS output of the Zelda is roughly 170% of the K200 DPS (and something like 220-250% of the DPS of "regular" 1-gun vehicles)
By comparison, the K200 only has maybe 40% higher DPS than regular vehicles. This could not justify a 100% price increase.
FrangibleCover wrote:Where is the line and how do you find it without playing the game and seeing what 'feels' right?
Maths is where the line is. If price difference to next increment is higher than performance difference, then it's not justifiable to increase the price.
FrangibleCover wrote:Heck, the M113 Minigun looks like a great unit, it has a really big RoF number. You have to either mine the stats or try the unit to find out that it's actually a bag of piss
To us, knowledgeable people discussing balance, we start the discussion knowing the actual stats already, there's nothing that needs to be mined.
Therefore we know right from the beginning how M113 Minigun DPS compares to other APC's DPS.
FrangibleCover wrote:Or in other words, games are balanced around coalitions.
Let's assume your premise holds true (we all know EUG stance on "overall balance") and Superheavies and ASFs being priced close to equally is coincidence.
How does balancing around coalitions justify Malka/Pion being priced 30pts above M110/A2?
This disadvantage must clearly be offset by some other tangible advantage. How does this advantage manifest in your opinion?
Smerch. Buratino. Uragan. Msta-S. Ondava. TELAK 91. Nora. Plamen-S. Malka is crap but even if it wasn't I'd never take it.
MARS, ATACMS, M270, Paladin, AS-90, LANCE, MAR-290, LAR-160, I can also start listing NATO high end arty.
Advantage by definition requires one side to have something the other cannot match, if the other side has something similar or even different but still valuable then we haven't moved ahead in the debate even by a single step.
So I'll rephrase the question.
How does balancing around coalitions justify Malka/Pion carrying a price difference of exactly 30 pts, not less and not more, above the M110A2?
The only other way we can judge a nation's "power" is by looking at their availability bonus, since that's the next best thing EUG has provided to us to give insight into how strong a Coalition/Nation is considered relative to others.
Or perhaps by playing the game? Nah, that's silly, we can sit in our crumbing ivory tower over here and balance the game using only the power of formal logic.
Interestingly enough, no matter the nation or coalition, the M110/A2 always has the same price (ISR/USA) even if fielded by a supposedly weaker nation without access to a powerful coalition (HOL/SK).
The exact same situation repeats on PACT side where nations on different parts of the power spectrum have access to Pion/Malka (CSSR, USSR, POL) yet the unit has the same price.
How on earth did you come to the conclusion that I was saying the guns should have different prices between nations?
I'm pointing out the position Melanin is supporting, not necessarily it being your position, but you're welcome to support whichever one you feel like.
#1 We're debating how in terms of game balance (details disputed), "pricing" between similar units should be equal (through cost or "coalition capability" or whatever else).
#2 Melanin claiming balancing is done around coalitions.
#3 Melanin claiming that this balancing includes price balancing of units (his justification for price discrepancy between Malka/Pion and M110/A2).
#4 We know coalitions are not identical in power due to availability bonuses being different set by EUGEN
The only way for these premises to all hold true is only if units end up having different cost when given to very different coalitions.
Because if they shouldn't have different cost, when given to very different coalitions, well then that's proof that pricing of units is at the very least NOT related to coalition balance (could be based on any number of other factors, but we know that this one factor is irrelevant where pricing of units is concerned)
BTW, looks like he successfully trolled the thread since you've taken the mantle over for him.