WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3055
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby urogard » Wed 7 Feb 2018 00:58

Steamfunk wrote:
On paper, 60% damage reduction and better turn rate looks quite comparable to 20% higher ECM and 1000 km/h

I don't think turn rate makes much difference, I've only taken the Il-102 a few times but it seems to take damage very quickly. All I'm saying is that units are (to paraphrase your quote) more than the sum of their parts. The reason many units are undervalued or ignored is because their purpose isn't well defined - the DLC nations benefit from a more analytic approach.

I wouldn't say well defined, but rather EUG probably priced certain parameters in a way we would find strange. Which is why we don't see the pattern, assuming there is one.

The 5-pts pricing scheme also has its fair share of blame.

User avatar
FrangibleCover
Lieutenant
Posts: 1448
Joined: Mon 14 Nov 2016 21:34
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby FrangibleCover » Wed 7 Feb 2018 01:03

urogard wrote:
high_melanin wrote:
urogard wrote:Any situation where you pay less or more for a unit than other equivalent units cost is an imbalance by definition.

Open up literally any dictionary definition of game balance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_(game_design)

balance is the concept and the practice of tuning a game's rules, usually with the goal of preventing any of its component systems from being ineffective or otherwise undesirable when compared to their peers


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.

Let's take a microcosm of the game: Wheeled transports armed with only machine guns. That is to say the following units:-
ASLAV-PC/Bison
TPz Fuchs
Grizzly
VAB
HMV
YP-408 PWI
XA-180 (#NOR)/PATGB XA-180
XA-186
KM-900
TGB m/42
Saxon
Humvee
BTR-152 (#ISR)
Hamer
SPW-152K/BTR-152 (#NK)/ZSL-56
BTR-60P
SKOT-2
XA-180 (#FIN)

These units are all different and some are better than others, but all are ten points. In my opinion, and I'm sure that of many others, these units are all balanced or close-to balanced. Your thesis indicates that these units are inconsistent, therefore not balanced, therefore require changes. Please propose appropriate changes for them so that I can understand how your establishment of academic credentials applies to that which all of us brainlets are really here to do - playing video games.


Edit: Incidentally, I just went and read the source of that Wikipedia claim, which is an article on a gaming website retrieved through the wayback machine. It says:
A second way the concept of fairness comes into play is the notion of gameplay balance. This is the sense that your circumstances or your chosen means of playing the game are roughly equivalent to everyone else's, in terms of giving you a fair shot at winning ... In a real-time strategy game, it is your set of units and abilities that may depend on your faction.

Or in other words, games are balanced around coalitions.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090312033 ... er-a.shtml
What if Wargame stuck to timeframe?
Image

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3055
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby urogard » Wed 7 Feb 2018 03:03

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
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.

Him asking for proof of a definition for game balance was vexing. Borderline trolling actually.
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.

FrangibleCover wrote:Your thesis indicates that these units are inconsistent, therefore not balanced, therefore require changes.

Any change in price for any of these units you posted would not reduce inconsistencies, therefore price equilibrium has been reached, therefore no changes are possible without disrupting the equilibrium and making the inconsistencies worse.

As opposed to Malka/Pion which are 30 pts overpriced vis a vis the M110/A2.
Reducing its price would reduce the inconsistency.

Spoiler : :
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.
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.


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?
Because I haven't seen any concrete evidence of such advantage that isn't already explicitly handled by the ingame availability bonus to a nation/coalition.

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.

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.

User avatar
chykka
Brigadier
Posts: 3374
Joined: Wed 28 Nov 2012 14:55
Location: Canada, Alberta
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby chykka » Wed 7 Feb 2018 06:09

The pion is pretty good tho, Although it's hard to justify in 1v1 if you need a fob and your opponent never brought one. It's good at getting fobs, really kinda slow for guess work if you only have two and huge waste of supply. So don't guess, but than it's kinda to slow to hit most moving units :).
Image

Fodder
Sergeant Major
Posts: 283
Joined: Fri 7 Oct 2016 20:15
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby Fodder » Wed 7 Feb 2018 09:24

urogard wrote:viewtopic.php?f=155&t=57789

So technically we get the following list of tanks where availabilities should be changed
AMX-40 => +2/+1
KPz T-72M1 => +2/+1
T-72BI => +2/+1
ZTZ-85-IIA => +2/+1
K1 => -1/-1
STRV 103D => +1/+0
T-72B => +2/+1
T-72M1M => +2/+1
T-64BV => +1/+0
T-72M1MOD => +1/+1

So instead of this
Spoiler : :
Leopard 2 (80 pts) 10/7
M1IP Abrams (80 Pts) 10/7
AMX-40 (80 pts) 8/6
KPz T-72M1 (80 pts) 8/6
ZTZ-85-IIA (80 pts) 8/6
T-72B1 (85 pts) 8/6
K1 (90 pts) 10/7
STRV 103D (90 pts) 8/6
T-72M1M (90 pts) 7/5
T-72B (90 pts) 7/5
Leopard 2A1 (100 pts) 8/6
T-80A (100 pts) 8/6
Challenger 1 Mk.1 (105 pts) 8/6
T-64BV1 (110 pts) 6/4
M1A1 Abrams (115 pts) 6/4
Challenger 1 Mk.2 (120 pts) 6/4
T-64BV (120 pts) 5/4
T-72S1 (120 pts) 6/4
T-72M2 WILK (120 pts) 6/4
Leclerc (165 pts) 3/2
T-72M1MOD (165 pts) 2/1


We end up with this
Spoiler : :
Leopard 2 (80 pts) 10/7
M1IP Abrams (80 Pts) 10/7
AMX-40 (80 pts) 10/7 => changed by (+2/+1)
KPz T-72M1 (80 pts) 10/7 => changed by (+2/+1)
ZTZ-85-IIA (80 pts) 10/7 => changed by (+2/+1)
T-72B1 (85 pts) 10/7 => changed by (+2/+1)
K1 (90 pts) 9/6 => changed by (-1/-1)
STRV 103D (90 pts) 9/6 => changed by (+1/+0)
T-72M1M (90 pts) 9/6 => changed by (+2/+1)
T-72B (90 pts) 9/6 => changed by (+2/+1)
Leopard 2A1 (100 pts) 8/6
T-80A (100 pts) 8/6
Challenger 1 Mk.1 (105 pts) 8/6
T-64BV1 (110 pts) 6/4
M1A1 Abrams (115 pts) 6/4
Challenger 1 Mk.2 (120 pts) 6/4
T-64BV (120 pts) 6/4 => changed by (+1/+0)
T-72S1 (120 pts) 6/4
T-72M2 WILK (120 pts) 6/4
Leclerc (165 pts) 3/2
T-72M1MOD (165 pts) 3/2


+1

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3055
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby urogard » Wed 7 Feb 2018 11:16

chykka wrote:The pion is pretty good tho, Although it's hard to justify in 1v1 if you need a fob and your opponent never brought one. It's good at getting fobs, really kinda slow for guess work if you only have two and huge waste of supply. So don't guess, but than it's kinda to slow to hit most moving units :).

We're not discussing if it's good, I've used Malka myself for a long time to snipe esp since USSR doesn't have any other accurate arty.

We're discussing what justifies Pion to cost 100 pts while the identical M110 only costs 70.
And why Malka costs 120 when M110A2 only costs 90.

User avatar
FrangibleCover
Lieutenant
Posts: 1448
Joined: Mon 14 Nov 2016 21:34
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby FrangibleCover » Wed 7 Feb 2018 11:57

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
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

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.

FrangibleCover wrote:Your thesis indicates that these units are inconsistent, therefore not balanced, therefore require changes.

Any change in price for any of these units you posted would not reduce inconsistencies, therefore price equilibrium has been reached, 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?

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.

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.

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. 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. Why isn't the K200 OP, it's basically a mini Zelda? Where is the line and how do you find it without playing the game and seeing what 'feels' right? 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.

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.

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?
What if Wargame stuck to timeframe?
Image

User avatar
Razzmann
General
Posts: 7496
Joined: Fri 7 Mar 2014 15:29
Location: The land of flowing beer and Sauerkraut.
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby Razzmann » Wed 7 Feb 2018 13:45

We should also buff the Crotale and HQ-7 to 40 points be ause they are identical to the Pracka.

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3055
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby urogard » Wed 7 Feb 2018 13:48

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
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:
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

FrangibleCover wrote:
FrangibleCover wrote:Your thesis indicates that these units are inconsistent, therefore not balanced, therefore require changes.

Any change in price for any of these units you posted would not reduce inconsistencies, therefore price equilibrium has been reached, 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.

FrangibleCover wrote:
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.

FrangibleCover wrote:
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.

FrangibleCover wrote:
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:
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?


FrangibleCover wrote:
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.

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3055
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby urogard » Wed 7 Feb 2018 13:55

Razzmann wrote:We should also buff the Crotale and HQ-7 to 40 points be ause they are identical to the Pracka.

Provide data please, how do we know Pracka shouldn't be the one getting a price nerf instead. :lol:

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 28 guests