> 2533274809541272;14:
> These threads are always so interesting. People who think the only way to balance a game is to focus on one mode are wrong.
> Contrary to what some say. 1v1 is not the most important mode in a RTS… nor are the multiplayer modes. They are all important.
>
> And no disrespect intended to all of the people who keep saying there are too many characters, but that is not the issue either. Do more characters make it more difficult? Yes.
> Is is impossible? No. Besides, there is no need to cry over spilled milk. The characters are here and I am not trying to give them back. I love the variety.
>
> The main problems have nothing to do with special units or powers. Yes the glassing beam is too powerful, but the developers knew that when they did it. I’m sure it will be changed shortly. The main problem is the core units as a whole aren’t balanced. Infantry just got to the point where they are formidable against air. Wraiths and Scorpions still need work against infantry. W
>
> And IMO, the issue with air isn’t air, it’s Anti- Air. Anti Air and is too easy to destroy with air. People complain about Anti Air being too strong, but the offensive strength is fine now. The issue is that a good player is going to focus his/her units onto the biggest threat and air can Destroy AA too easily.
>
> The truth of the matter is once the core of the game is balanced, it will be balanced for all game modes. It doesn’t matter if it is 1v1 or 3v3, a single player attacking with full pop air shouldn’t be as dominant as they are. That said, if we are talking multi player matches, 1 person should not be able to stop two people with full pop air. That is what teammates are for.
>
> But once the core of the game is truly balanced, it should be fine in every mode.
I would agree that focusing on a single mode is not the only way to balance a game. But there’s a stark difference between just “a game” and an RTS. Many games have separate balancing for different gamemodes. In RTS, they remain static throughout, which forces the need for a main gamemode to be the focus of balancing. The reason 1s are the main focus is because balancing the game around 2s and 3s just wouldn’t make sense. What would 1s look like if the game was balanced around 3s? It would probably be unrecognizable. Base killing units on T1 would most likely be useless due to nerfs to make unbeatable cheeses beatable in 3s. Air, in it’s entirety, would be suicide (which it already pretty much is). Decimus would be terrible. There are just a few examples. However, the changes would be felt in 2s as well.
I’m going to go ahead and copy-paste a post I made a few months ago to explain why 1s are the standard model for balance:
"While this is an ‘unwritten rule’, there has been speculation as to why RTS is balanced this way.
‘If you’re talking strictly competitively, they’ve experimented with team modes there as well, but, in the past, they mostly haven’t worked. It’s much more difficult to design interesting maps for teams, and it’s significantly easier to design both balanced and interesting matchups for 1v1. Since competitive RTS mostly came from Brood War and is very competitive by nature, that 1v1s are taxing hasn’t been a major factor in design. That 1v1s are also much easier (and better, imo) to watch for spectators and as esports was also a factor in that.’
Another theory: ‘It is theoretically impossible to work backwards from a balance standpoint. The reason for this is simple: for a developer to test if something is balanced, he needs to be able to test it in an extremely controlled environment first to make sure that it is not too effective on its own, and the only thing that could make it ‘overpowered’ or ‘underpowered’ would be directly how you use it, and not how team-play manages into it.’
Another tidbit to keep in mind is that RTS does not lend itself to team games in the first place. Most normal RTS games focus on 1v1 with team games there for ‘teh lulz’ so to speak. Halo Wars is an exception as it draws from an audience that is full of FPS fans who will no doubt value team play higher than a veteran RTS player. Team games are inherently casual, and the Halo Wars playerbase is disproportionately casual because of the franchise it’s attached to. This means that while team games are not the main gamemode, they are much more played than the main gamemode itself, 1v1.
To sum it up in a remark not my own, 'If you want to play RTS team games competitively, you’re doing it wrong." (End quote)
As for your statements about the amount of leaders not being a problem, well, you kind of self refute that. No one (as far as I know) is saying it’s impossible to balance the game. Simply that the fact that there are more leaders than maps and more leader powers than units is a roadblock to a balanced game. Note that I say “roadblock”, not “impasse.”
If you think that infantry has just now become “formidable against air” since this recent patch, then you’re just dead wrong. It was months ago now and the VOD is gone, but in a tournament I played against a primarily team games player in two 1v1s who went air both games. Both games, he was shut down by infantry. The commentators noted (as they should) that air cannot secure expansions and falls flat against infantry, making it impractical.
As for the AA not being strong enough argument, this has been done to death. If you have evidence of this, show it. Otherwise, I find it very hard to believe that you’ll be swaying anyone to your side. In fact, if you want to gather a team and test just how good air is in a custom match, I’m sure sadder joker would love to oblige.