Jump to content

Home

Good balance


Jmaster3265

Recommended Posts

I usually play as the rebels (just a bit more then the empire not much)but recently have been trying the empire in Galactic conquest. At first i struggled to defend my planets from constant rebel attacks of huge forces. I would constantly loose my space station but never the land battles. As soon as the rebels landed its everyone to attack so they never conquer the planet.

I have now progressed through the conquest and am now building ISD's THEY ROCK but haven't come up against any MCs yet so hard to tell.

Anyway to the point - Its more difficult for the empire early on but once they tech up its very even. Also i like how they made it harder for the empire to get the hyper velocity gun as the rebel equivalent - ion cannon is no comparison. I can see how they made the balance here though: Ion cannon disables the ship so the bombers can take it out which the rebels have lots off.

The HVG destroys the ship totally but you need to build a light -> Heavy factory on the planet before the structure is unlocked, so its very costly to build.

 

The empire on land battles have it easy to against the AI, human players may be different. 4 AT-ATs plus Dark Vader is all i need. As soon as they land deploy storm troopers build an Anti aircraft near the AT-ATs and stop them there all mission. I then go about taking over the planet with DV and loads of free storm troopers plus bombing runs.

A human player would not let me get away with this but for the AI its works a treat.

 

So in my humble opinion the game is well balanced each unit has a counter, and the counter has a well-calculated cost.

 

What are your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you seen the AI build a HVG while in GC mode? Not one that is pre-placed in the XML but built as normal?

 

Does the AI know how many slots it takes to get the HVG built, and actually do it?

 

I never ran across one yet...I wonder if something is messed up with my game files.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are that if we liked the "balance" and "realism" of an ATAT firing a freaking trooper 10 times to kill him we wouldn't burn our free time modding some dozens of XML files and some hundreds of XML entries...

 

Personally i don't like the "scissors-rock-paper" thing to be applied 100%; ATATs are meant to be unstopable and if you do have some fire under your feet and need urgently to stop them from entering your shield dome and wreacking havoc, you really need to make some advanced calculations in your mind to stop them (ie. making 1-2 blockades of artilleries and good front lines, attacking from rear etc).

 

When someone uses the empire must feel that he will crush every single resistance. The original game doesn't give you such certainty. The only way to really play GC at its best is either in LAN or online; no human player is compared to a *smart* pc.

 

To conclude, the original game did not satisfy me in many way as far as balance and realism are concerned. Balance means to implement some imbalances, but in such way so that each faction can give tactics and bonusses so that to survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I figure EaW has it's focus in multiplayer - or was intended as such.

So, proposing to give one side units (or even an overall massive advantage) that would require the opposite player to employ advanced tactics to overcome a simple "deploy, click attack move, destroy" just isn't in the best interrest of most of the potential players. I played warcraft 3 for a LONG time, through loads of patches, until I got tired of the thing. If you haven't played that, you simply wouldn't believe what a unit with just a slight edge or "imbalance" in the overall system (such as the ability to counter more and or unintended things when used in way x with support of unit y and hero z) would cause in terms of problems (and subsequent uproar and whinewars in the community). And we're talking about a game using battle.net - the one matchmaking service to rule them all. While that had it's problems, too, there were mechanisms in place that actively tried to match even players. EaW doesn't have that, does it?

 

My point is: While I think it's plain stupid to watch an Atat (or AtSt... or a tank... or a lot of things) need the kind of effort they do in order to obliterate a trooper - I believe it's the kind of things you have to sacrifice if you're aiming for competitive multiplayer. Now, if you were to change the whole system to a point where it makes more sense pseudo-realism wise, and still arrive at a balance where with two players of equal skill and mindset, no side means using the IWIN button... count me in :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts are that if we liked the "balance" and "realism" of an ATAT firing a freaking trooper 10 times to kill him we wouldn't burn our free time modding some dozens of XML files and some hundreds of XML entries...

Maybe the AT-AT Fires at the trooper one body part at a time. For Example.

 

Trooper: "OMG he hit my leg."

AT-AT Pilot: That's 20% of his HP bar. Aim for his groin!!!

Trooper: "OMG he's aiming for my groin!!!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...