#Arm/cor discrepancies for pricing

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

covert anchor
#

This thread is to catalog the list of strange stuff

#

Shredder vs Fury
450 vs 470 metal
9100 vs 10500 energy
9950 vs 12000 BP
71 speed vs 69 speed
The only weakness of the shredder is 2600 vs 2700 hp, which isn't a big deal

This trend is mirrored fort2 cons. Which makes cortex tangibly worse for eco'ing. To some extent you could argue that cortex makes up for this in the quality of its t2 and t3 units.

#

Karg metal drain (metal/100BP) is 3.3 which is inline with fast raiding marauders (3.7). Razor/Titan is 4.4/4.9. Karg has a rather high bp cost considering it's a main army unit.

shy silo
#

At t1, arm cons are faster and cheaper, while core labs are cheaper and the cons are tankier. This relationship is not consistent at t2 tho (and I agree favors arm at all stages)

covert anchor
#

t1 bots the cor con is just strictly worse. oh nvm it does have a bit more hp

shy silo
#

150 hp is fairly significant, but the speed is generally better i think. hp on a con is only relevant if you've already failed somewhere

covert anchor
#

ah, t2 lab is 100m more expensive. yes, speed and cost

#

basically you want to get arm cons/butlers from arm teammates on wind maps, or just choose arm for eco reasons

#

on solar maps you are quite inclined to favour cor for eco reasons, since arm asolars pretty bad. cor has fusion/afus advantage too

shy silo
#

the t2 bot labs are the same price, which is not consistent and probably a relic from when core bots was dominant at all levels and all time frames if I had to guess

covert anchor
#

to some extent i think it's fine but in practice picking a race on a map for eco reasons and not unit reasons feels kinda lame

shy silo
#

I don't think the eco differences are as important as the unit differences in most cases, but I do think the con and lab costs should be standardized

void idol
#

Please don’t make the factions more the same. People are complaining they are too similar

somber matrix
#

Giving cortex cons higher BP than arm+ swapping energy cost differences- should be interesting balancing

covert anchor
#

ARM strengths:
-radar/jamming
-speed
-slightly cheaper, build faster
Core strengths:
-bit more hp
-some combat units better at head-up performance
-artillery bombardment/splash

#

this looks fine, but in general, more cost+slower speed is not compensated by slightly more hp on non-combat units

shy silo
#

Historically, core's advantage has largely been tempo. Bots (and light bots in particular) were very dominant, and grunts were the king. This translated to more map control, faster lab switches and teching, and faster conversions of map control/tech into wins. I think this is very visible in the lab differences and most central core units ie grunts, shurikens, pyros, sheldons, shivas. The lab, con and eco make more sense in this context too imo. Moving the meta away from light bots has hugely diminished this advantage imo, and while core is still rather strong, it no longer has an effective central guiding strategy that it is balanced around (in team games)

covert anchor
#

early game tends to be the most important in rts

#

pawn is a really strong unit now imo. montrous dps.

long beacon
#

harmonising cons and such is on my list to do, but core need a meaningful buff, not X% more HP

#

arm cons faster, but core having more BP for example

#

core do have a later game eco edge, but -all their stuff costs more to build and fire-

#

I'm not convinced at all that the eco gain offsets that unless you can turtle eco for a very long time, and get past the late T2/early T3 ability gap

ionic granite
somber matrix
#

I feel it should go more after identity, where cor is more about strength and armada is flexibility. Not much identity in having cor cons just be worse