Damage Upgrades on Units with Bonuses ANSWERED

[kingofgalaxies]

Now, this is a serious one.

As you know, humans have a research which gives infantries +4 damage (dmg). Same goes for reptilians, they have the triple tech which gives all energy weapons a total of +5 dmg.
Now, the interesting part comes when you consider how those boosters multiply with the bonuses the units naturally have vs certain categories. This is noticeable esp. for units with high bonus percentages.
E.g. railgun infantry initially deals 10 dmg +200% = 30 dmg vs vehicles/big creatures. But, with the dmg boost it deals 14 dmg +200% = 42 dmg! (plus with stim 2x attack) Similarly, e.g. Grey javelineer, who should be decent but not great against flying, with the boost deals 40 instead of 20 dmg!
The problem here is apparently that certain units get far more advantage from the boost than others. This way, some units that are just about normally balanced suddenly become borderline op, while for others it works perfectly fine.
Problematic is also the fact the boosts affects most reptilian units and most of human infantry, respectively. Would it affect only the ones where it has less impact (ones with low/no bonuses), this would maybe be a step in the right direction. I guess for this, you'd need to change /create some unit categories.
If that's not the solution, the only help I see then would be to nerf the dmg of all the units with high bonuses a bit. This way, when the techs are researched, these units would catch up or even surpass the others with low/no bonus, but still remain under control.

I'm rly interested in your takes on this, as this goes to the core of Ao balancing.

[Midonik]

I've noticed that. Units with multiple actions also benefit more.

Would it affect only the ones where it has less impact (ones with low/no bonuses), this would maybe be a step in the right direction. - that wouldn't make logical sense tho. If you look at reptilian energy weapons techs, for example, they are meant to improve... Energy weapons, so why should it work for alphas, but not alpha minigunners, since both use energy weapons?


nerf the dmg of all the units with high bonuses a bit - it would probably be better to increase their base damage and decrease bonuses, so that they scale less



However I actually don't see this as a problem. It makes sense for the units with bonuses to get significantly stronger towards units they have bonuses against. They still are not good or not as good as other units against the units they don't have bonuses against, so they aren't op, you still need other units.

[kingofgalaxies]

- that wouldn't make logical sense tho. If you look at reptilian energy weapons techs, for example, they are meant to improve... Energy weapons, so why should it work for alphas, but not alpha minigunners, since both use energy weapons?

Exactly, it would be hard to justify without rearranging some categories so that it fits to the units we don't want to boost.

nerf the dmg of all the units with high bonuses a bit - it would probably be better to increase their base damage and decrease bonuses, so that they scale less

This 2. idea would also work, though then the uniqueness of units would get blurred a bit. (all would have high damage and small bonus) So I still prefer nerfing the basic dmg of said units. For reptiles those with energy weapons, high bonus and double attack, and for humans infantry with high bonus and double attack (dunno if stim counts here).

However I actually don't see this as a problem. (...) They still are not good or not as good as other units against the units they don't have bonuses against, so they aren't op, you still need other units.

See, that's not the point. From what you're saying, balancing wouldn't make any sense at all, as "every unit has strengths and weaknesses". BUT, the point is that if certain units get so strong they prevent an opponent from even considering building troops of a certain category (e.g. an op railgun inf. vs mechanicals), that's out of control and needs to be adjusted!

[Midonik]

BUT, the point is that if certain units get so strong they prevent an opponent from even considering building troops of a certain category (e.g. an op railgun inf. vs mechanicals)

I dont believe that is the case tho, and for the reason I already gave. To counter the railgunners, you would need to build some sort of a anti infantry unit, preferably infantry. Your opponent, to counter that, need to make some unit with bonus against said unit, so for example an anti infantry vehicle. Against such a vehicle, it might just turn out that the strongest unit against it is some kind of an anti-vehicle vehicle, and... oh, suddenly there is a reason to build vehicles again! This rock-paper-scissors scenario related to bonuses means that unit dealing very high damage to units they have bonuses against doesnt allow them to make that whole category obsolete.


I think, if anything, theres room for disscusion on whether units without bonuses dont fall to far behind the ones with them, but I feel like there still is usage for many of them.

[kingofgalaxies]

What I'm talking about is more nuanced balancing. Do you think it's fine that a 3-turns-infantry onehits vehicles of 4, 5 or even 6 turns cost, sometimes two of them at once?!
It's about relative VALUE. Dangerous when low-cost units are too good.
Of course this whole game is based on rock paper scissors interactions. Ofc every unit is counterable. Doesn't mean a unit can't be op.
Also, you're showcasing esp. smaller combats. In battles of large armees those overly strong units crystallise as game changers. That's why it's so important to keep those at bay, balanced.

Buffing the units with no bonuses is ofc an alternative to what I suggested. Just need to be careful that in the end, not every unit onehits opponents. This would kinda destroy the hp system. So, instead of buffing said units plus adding hp to everyone to compensate, maybe still better to just slightly nerf dmg of the others, as I suggested?

[Stratego (dev)]

i have not read tru the topic to know if my answer fits here or not - but in general:
- a unit having bonus against other is ok to one-hit a double costed unit. as that is his main goal, (like a pikeman against cavalry, or an anti air unit an air unit)

exactly that is the bonus system for.

[Midonik]

Thank you, exactly.

Because a unit with bonuses can kill more expensive units from the category it has a bonus against, however it is weak against all unit it doesn't have a bonus against, and it also can be killed by units cheaper than it. So it's relative value balances itself.

[kingofgalaxies]

Thanks dev for making this one clear.
We diverted a bit from main topic though.

Basically all I want you guys to consider is: Is it harmful for the units balancing if, thanks to a big damage boost for a whole category (through a tech), some units get way more benefits than others? Examples railgun inf, energy sword/spearalphas, giga laser, turtleman etc.
Let's maybe also await some more comments by others.

[kingofgalaxies]

Just wanna emphasize that as humans, in the late game all I'm using vs replilians is railgun inf in transports, drones (who can't be converted ) and artillery...