#The GDT's WIP Tech-Split

1 messages Ā· Page 5 of 1

formal olive
#

that wouldn't reduce the number of lobbies with good players.

calm python
#

actually there has been
and your the cause of it
why is there a number of mechanical changes in this thread that dont appear in that coop thread that you love to shove people to and dump on there.
your behavoir here has not been productive
you hate talking about the tiersplit with other people because they tell you to stop
if you want a completely different game to what we have now, which you have made very clear in private channels, your free to make actual suggestion threads that go somewhere
Chosing to ingore people is your choice after all.
why else would you dump people into the #1337861239526785064 thread?

near ferry
#

reminder that map makers are usually noob except rebelnode and they usually no idea how to balance game despite them being in control of all the levers that affect balance on that map

clever jungle
#

Im just not interested in waiting for the coop fix to start working on something I believe in. You all are welcome to work on the coop fix. It won't be impacted by this modoption

calm python
#

pointing out a persons behavoir is always fun

plain ravine
#

This modadoption impacts the mental stability of most players gg

dusky merlin
heady rain
formal olive
#

it would be really op if someone made low metal comet catcher

near ferry
#

low metal solar maps are insane crazy id be down

formal olive
#

imagine that with your idea of mexes costing more e. brutal lol, fighting for every stumpy

clever jungle
#

Soon we'll test it. You can only theorycraft so much.

Well we did test 150 e/s already, but that was not my number...

near ferry
#

honestly its not even hard to make these kinds of changes, its fast and can be tested really quick. thats the kind of stuff we should test imo

heady rain
#

they already prepping engine for commie nerfs that's the main source of hope rn

near ferry
formal olive
#

i usually do non-balance work but this sharing stuff might ramp me into trying out balance things. The mex idea sounds cool to try, but we'll see how things go i guess

clever jungle
near ferry
#

i think it would highly depend if map is solar map or wind map. Honestly I think wind algorythm needs a change where it has larger dips between gaps, like it holds at different values more often and swings more harshly

clever jungle
#

Coop is really good at exploiting the imbalanced power spikes but even without coop games are still impacted by the spike, so it obviously can be addressed independently and once the coop solution takes more shape it can be better informed by it.

near ferry
# clever jungle Even 70 feels high. I was thinking a moderate 48 e/s

would be cool to have a profiler that shows u how much per sec ur resources are going where - so u can see what % of ur e is going into units and what % of ur e is going into upkeep or shooting etc. Then u can find the sweet spot better. Also can do the same thing with metal , how much are u investing in infra and how much are u investing in porc etc

spark girder
#

I think using the extra unit assault engineer with its attack weapon disabled might be better as a temporary con as it doesnt have the issues with it being two units in one.

It isnt in the basegame yet for a specific issue that needs to be resolved.

sour mauve
#

That's fine, way better than the short range problems a "build from basepoint" was causing.

These are not LLTs where building them at weird ranges is a drastic advantage.

(Oh, discord scrolled a long time after writing this :P)

[And if the issue is just using the model sphere, would using the footprint be better?]

calm python
reef crater
#

I made alternative proposal to adress T2 powerspike it also touches on Battery coop, worst kind of coop. Dosen't change any units at all.

neon moth
#

Assault, obviously? Arenā€™t they literally called medium assault tanks

#

There are two elements to the assault.

The one that is intended to breach and hold open the breach (i.e WW2 Tiger I or say, a Mammoth / Tzar)

The other element is intended to rapidly advance through the breach and exploit. (I.e Fiends which are categorized as assault)

clever jungle
# neon moth Assault, obviously? Arenā€™t they literally called medium assault tanks

It is in the name but that doesn't necessarily mean that is their only practical role right now. Assault makes sense for them, but their stats feel fairly generalist to me over all. You can also use them as a skirmisher. I'm not saying this is bad or should change, I just want to think about it

Thugs are also an assault/skirmisher unit. Interesting

#

I think rocket bots fit nicely into skirmisher for both factions. They feel too similar between factions to me but thats outside of the scope of the split
Centurions are also a skirmisher/assault unit

#

So in cortex bots you have these combat options
1x Raider scout
1x skimisher
1x skirmisher/Assault

#

In armada bots you have
1x scout
1x Raider
1x skirmisher
2x skimisher/Assault

#

It's within the scope of this split to adjust these rosters a bit so that they have a fighting chance against T2. Right now med tanks are one of the few t1 units that can hold up to early T2 so these are an example to keep in mind when thinking about tiny stat adjustments we could add to the split

plain ravine
#

how is a centurion a skirmisher that makes no sense

oblique kite
#

@sour walrus we might need a 5k message celebration from you soon

clever jungle
#

If they didnt have the range they did they would be assault only. Theyre great at skirmishing with commanders though, therefore they must be a skimisher in some capacity

neon moth
# clever jungle It is in the name but that doesn't necessarily mean that is their only practical...

They are not skirmishers, you can always make things do something else than the role they're intended for, that's fine.

Med tanks are very confidently in the assault role. They are not full raid units as they are not that fast, and they are not skirmishers, as they struggle at fighting those types of engagements. They require sustained engagement to really stack up damage, which is not quite what a skirmisher is.

You can take someone who starts med tanks in 8v8 glitters and put them against rocket bot, they will probably lose that really hard, since they wont be able to skirmish well..

clever jungle
#

Units can have secondary roles, that is what Im talking about. By definition a secondary role has to be worse than a different unit's primary role if theyre the same

neon moth
#

Their second role is raider, yes. They become the exploitation force in T2 while the heavier and slower T2 units like mammoth / tzar become the breach unit

clever jungle
#

In 1v1 at least, when med tanks come out they are the best raider in their tier

#

It's very troubling, but thats outside of the scope of the split. It should be in a vanilla palance patch

plain ravine
clever jungle
#

Then why do they need to skirmish with commanders?

neon moth
# clever jungle You could say these are just assault too, but that would be ignoring their range

Centurions lean much more heavily towards a specialist assault role. I don't think they are too amazing at skirmishing, they are pretty fat and slow to be able to weave in and out. They thrive at being able to sustain engagement especially when running down commanders.

In some way, yes it is somewhat leaning towards skirmisher because they do thrive in smaller group fights and having sporadic engagements against targets of opportunity, but I'd say they very much lean heavily towards assault only rather than being a true "skirmisher" since they don't really have that range to do anything but commit to an assault / strike, and they really do fall apart again against true skirmishers and have a similar style of matchup as thug vs rocket

I would say skirmishers conceptually would be a unit that is mobile enough and has high range with slow-ish reload that thrive at sporadic engagements. Get in range, shoot your shot, then get out of range of returning shots as you reload, then repeat. I would say they excel at the "apm tax" kind of combat.

You look away, you lose unit. You have to micro actively to not lose as much, and they are still disrupting your OODA loop because there are these units continually attriting forces / dealing damage and they are hard to deal with because they are mobile enough to fall back to safe territory if you try to commit to some kind of counterattack

plain ravine
neon moth
# clever jungle It's within the scope of this split to adjust these rosters a bit so that they h...

I won't lie but I personally think its fine for T1 bots (that represent infantry) to end up struggling against a higher tech enemy if its just themselves. I think it makes sense given how cheap T1 bot units are. I just don't want them to get instantly deleted by things like tzar / sniper / fatboy / banisher at 5-6m cuz one side go commie to skip t1 phase

I personally don't think T1 labs should be capable against everything and should instead be incentivized to sidetech (i.e. cortex you can mix in shurikens or you can mix in pounders / wolverines)

Armada unfortunately doesn't have as great T1 composition mixes which kind of suck :/

T2 and up is where i'm kind of iffy about the same opinion. I think Arm bot lab not having arbiter makes it just generally weaker since its way more of an opportunity cost to end up having to eat your t2 lab and go to a completely diff t2 lab

neon moth
# plain ravine this is what I would also consider a skirmisher, centurion and med tank both do ...

ye, skirmishers are light infantry / calvary troops. They're geared towards mobile firepower. Get into advantageous position and take small advantageous fights whenever you can, and get the fuck out of dodge afterwards.

A T1 rocket bot is the epitome of this. High range, slow reload, very mobile (compared to turn rate of something like med tank) but also very fragile (compared to something like med tank or thug/mace). You step into range, shoot your shot and you want to get out of enemy range because otherwise you're just sitting there to take free damage while you're reloading

#

A unit would be geared more towards skirmishing when they have that type of combat style where they are relying on ambush tactics or high mobility to take better fights (at that part of the battlefield)

Sheldon for example, also great example of a skirmisher unit at T2

compact mulch
#

The skirmisher type that does hit-and-run requires range and speed that is typically compensated by low dps and health (this is the reason why it can't brawl against assault units).

neon moth
#

yes, assault units are basically heavy infantry / armor and skirmishers are light infantry / armor

Light infantry is not going to win against heavy infantry unless the light infantry is able to heavily exploit their mobility to setup constant ambushes to whittle down the heavy infantry force that would be superior at a straight up engagement

compact mulch
#

Very interesting is that roles can morph against different units. For example, Thug can be a hit-and-run skirmisher against ANY unit that has worse range and speed.

neat urchin
#

There are hybrids and overlap and ambiguity and that is very good for the game. šŸ‘

neon moth
#

Well, skirmishing is not something that requires dedicated equipment or anything to do. Its just that to excel at that role, there are tradeoffs (i.e. can't be heavily armored or equipped or else you compromise mobility)

Any unit can skirmish, but not every unit will be able to excel at it. Same with any unit can try to conduct a frontal assault, not every unit will succeed at it as well as something dedicated to it.

compact mulch
neon moth
# compact mulch What does it mean for a unit to be "dedicated" to its role? Likely that its stat...

When I mean "dedicated equipment" I mean in terms of the concept.

A skirmisher tends to be lightly equipped and armored so they have high mobility which is the primary thing that enables them to do their job and not die for it.

An assault unit tends to be heavily equipped and armored, trading mobility for firepower and protection. They start to be too heavy to get around to where they should be (i.e. just slower in general or even being too heavy for bridges, airdrops, etc..)

You can take an infantry rifle company and try to have them assault a town, but they'll probably get eviscerated if you don't properly support them with assets that can enable them to do that, which generally are heavy in nature: Tanks, artillery, infantry support guns (towed or self propelled), and you probably also would have something like an infantry fighting vehicle for that infantry to fight alongside and be able to rapidly get through into and through the breach opened up.

So, an assault unit can skirmish (i.e. get into a small scale engagement where both sides do not want to commit)

And a skirmisher can assault

But they are not optimal at doing what they are not meant for

So yes, you can skirmish, but that doesn't mean you become an actual bonafide skirmisher

#

So in BAR terms lets look at it like this:

You have a mammoth, it can skirmish with things, sure, but what happens if the enemy sheldon ball decides to just.. walk around? The mammoth isn't actually really having a say in the skirmish, the enemy is in complete control of when and where to fight, so its not really a skirmisher, but it can be a part of a skirmish.

#

For the mammoth to seize the initiative and force the enemy to fight at the location and timing of your choosing is for you to throw it in and commit to an assault, otherwise the enemy will always be able to play around your slow, heavy unit. Skirmishers like sheldon will be able to easily kite it around and harass it or other parts of your army, and the mammoth would not be able to help defend against that.

Skirmishers choose the timing and location of their battle - they are lightly equipped and lightly armored, they NEED to exploit their mobility to get things accomplished. They are fighting their own little battle and should be separate from your main formation.

You can probably see this play out in game quite often:

Assault force of sumo / mammoth is continuing to walk in, while the sheldon / arbiter ball has in the meantime, acted as a vanguard to open up porc and also see where enemy concentrations are at. When the main forces are about to collide, they fall back behind and typically are microed around to try and snipe high value targets and otherwise disrupt the enemy formation.

compact mulch
#

There's a skirmisher variant that needs health, where it has slightly worse/equal range than its target, along with poor reload speed but better movement speed. This kind of skirmisher leverages its mobility and higher damage-per-shot (even if its DPS is equal to the target) to get in range (accept 1 or 2 shots from enemy), do its super damage shot, then move away to reload, to create an effective DPS advantage.

neon moth
#

I guess something like razorback gatling gun that has multiple bursts in the one shot, but increase the reload time?

Oh yeah good point, Janus is already this type of heavy burst damage run in skirmisher

deep bridge
#

is that not janus

winter valve
#

tiers and roles are never gonna 100% work when describing rts units

#

even calling something t1 or t2 tells you little of its power level, take pawn and cent for example or hound and starlight

compact mulch
# deep bridge is that not janus

Janus weapon fits, but its mobility is relatively low. Plus the fact it's a vehicle means hit-and-run mobility is stunted unless you micro it to engage on its broadside like an optimized naval attack. Janus vs Rocketeer comes to mind as a partially good example.

neon moth
#

roles are gonna work when describing RTS units, in a similar fashion you can describe modern formations of armies to have those similar roles.

Overlap is fine but there is still a clear specialization typically.

i.e. the differences between the modern infantry brigade, stryker brigade, and armored brigade

You can explain RTS easily with modern military concepts and terms

rotund badger
#

look at rocket bots, theyre not artillery at all, most of the time they do the job plasma bots where intended to do

torn walrus
#

they're artillery when you make them to kill LLTs

winter valve
#

and they are assault units when you give them to conquer

rotund badger
torn walrus
#

it's artillery role when you do it from outside of range, assault from inside

neon moth
#

If we consider "artillery" as being able to take out fortifications, then they could be, sure. But I don't think I would categorize them at all as artillery or even assault. They struggle at all those, but they can do it.

Rocket bots can take out HLTs and such, but they are not the best at it compared to wolverine / shellshocker

Rocket bots can just keep walking forward, but thats kind of any unit that is mobile enough and you're winning. Doesn't make them an assault unit though.

Light infantry these days can easily take out light fortifications by themselves (which is what LLT would be), that doesn't change them from being light infantry still though

winter valve
#

so we can determine that some units are role-fluid?

compact mulch
# rotund badger look at rocket bots, theyre not artillery at all, most of the time they do the j...

Yeah and it's because Rocket bots outrange and outspeed Thugs/Maces. Total domination and the only way Thugs/Maces can do anything is start the engagement deeper and tank the initial rocket volley such that it might be able to push in with remaining health/numbers and do something (because outrange/outspeed eventually wins but does give up space, and if that space is a valuable target, it can still die to a big enough enemy force).

neon moth
#

Everything is capable of doing any action, assaulting something doesn't require you to have the dedicated equipment for it. But you can't say that a light tank can pull off assaults as easily as a heavy tank, nor can you say a heavy tank is capable of conducting reconnaissance and skirmish-esque actions as easily as a light tank or armored car

The roles should signify what that unit's primary mission set is designed to do

A skirmisher should excel at skirmishing, but the existence of a unit that is mobile and can do damage means it can be used to assault or tear down fortifications too. Doesn't change that they are still primarily meant to be skirmishers though.. everything can be used in any action, but they are not all as good at it as some others.

clever jungle
#

Too much overlap means the unit identities are just a grey goo of balance. No thank you

rotund badger
compact mulch
#

What is the difference between skirmisher and artillery? Movement speed? Health?

torn walrus
#

relative power vs units and static defenses, it just happens to be that many units overlap between these two roles in this game

deep bridge
#

direct and indirect fire

clever jungle
rotund badger
#

rocket bot literally gets countered by HLT, you can force them to rush in close enough for your thugs to hit them if they want to attack the HLT, obviously this only works in tight spaces like isthmus. Or else they retreat since they cant stay within HLT range forever

#

you could consider rocket bots artillery in 1v1 where you mostly have LLTs but weirdly enough they dont seem to be used in 1v1 a lot

compact mulch
neon moth
# compact mulch What is the difference between skirmisher and artillery? Movement speed? Health?

There's a fair amount of overlap between artillery and skirmishing in BAR (i.e. quaker)

But I would say, higher range, less maneuverable (i.e. limited firing arc + slow turn speed), higher damage, weak to mobile units / dealing with mobile units. They are more tailored towards dealing better with heavy fortifications or heavy concentration of troops at exchange of being less mobile and not being great at hitting moving targets

winter valve
#

if I remember this correctly quaker and mouser were redesigned to become more of a skirmishing unit intentionally, they used to be slower and longer ranged

clever jungle
#

Skirmishers can kite units, artillery shouldnt be able to.

There isnt one single descriptor though. All of the qualities listed make sense. By emphasizing some you can make unique units that still fulfill their roles

neon moth
#

artillery is force multiplier - they should be added in support of something infront of them. They shouldn't be able to hold on their own due to lack of maneuverability and unable to direct fire

compact mulch
#

There is a tactical concept of alpha time advantage where you take the range advantage that rocket bots have versus pawns, and the time it takes for pawns to close that gap; reach their weapon range from edge of the range of the rocket bots (which are kiting backwards) is the "alpha time advantage" of the rocket bots. Now there's another concept of forward/backward overlapping fields of fire where you can have an LLT behind the rocket bot such that when the pawn gets halfway to reaching the rocket bot, it starts tanking fire from the LLT. So in order for the pawn to deal ANY damage to the rocket bot, its health must exceed the damage taken from the rocket bot's "alpha time advantage" as well as the LLT's "time window" between pawn in-range and pawn reaches-rocket-bot. Tactical theory 101!

#

Specifically, Pawn has 36 more movespeed and 295 less range than Rocketeer. Normally, we would be able to calculate the alpha time advantage by dividing the relative range by the relative movespeed, but looks like that wouldn't make sense to what we actually see? How long does it take for a Pawn to reach a Rocketeer in-game? What is the meaning of these numbers? Definitely something that clouds tactical analysis is inaccessible and undefined stat information. We should fix that.

neon moth
# compact mulch Yeah and it's because Rocket bots outrange and outspeed Thugs/Maces. Total domin...

yep, this kind of matchup is also what reinforces the concept that the rocket bot is light infantry, while the thug is heavy infantry.

If the rocket bot runs out of ground to fall back to and the thug is able to keep into a sustained engagement with them due to that, usually the thugs will win.

But if the thugs keep getting kited, they will lose. I don't particularly mind this interaction at all, as I think it makes sense when you look at it from the lens of a light infantry vs heavy infantry matchup. Just I guess its pretty easy to stop a thug walk once you put down like 2 LLTs or a beamer

rotund badger
#

unlike most other bots rockets bots become way worse on mountains for this reason because suddenly elevation is important

compact mulch
# neon moth yep, this kind of matchup is also what reinforces the concept that the rocket bo...

"win" in the sense that the Thugs get to destroy a valuable target. That reminds me of another tactical concept/calculation, metal-equivalent time-to-kill distance Thugs cost about 27% more than Rocket Bots (Aggravators), and 1.27 Rocket Bots have 52 DPS. Thugs have 1100 health, so the time to kill 1 Thug is 21 seconds. Thugs have 45 movespeed, so the distance you give up during kiting with rocket bots is 21 x 45 = 945 units. If there's anything valuable within that TTK distance, the Thugs have some fraction of the TTK (less than 21 seconds) to apply their potential damage.

compact mulch
#

One of the important highlights of concepts/calculations like this is that it generally holds true for even larger numbers of Thugs and Rocket Bots. We can be aware that dodging (fewer numbers) and overkill damage (larger numbers) reduces the effective DPS of the rocket bots so as to extend the TTK and TTK distance, yet still find these benchmarks useful. For very large numbers, there is yet another concept/calculation maximum kiting formation depth determined by the relative range of Thugs vs Rocket Bots (475 - 380 = 95) which means that you can only build up a formation of Rocket Bots that are 95 units deep until increasing depth any further would either cause those extra rocket bots in the back to be UNABLE to attack the Thugs (rocket bots simply don't have enough range at that position in the kiting formation) or ACCEPT damage from the Thugs (if we add rocket bots to the front of the formation that was already only slightly beyond Thug weapon range, of course those rocket bots are going to get hit).

compact mulch
#

For anyone who wants to glimpse into more advanced concepts, let's touch on surplus-speed reload-time excess-unit cycling. The relative speed advantage of rocket bots is 48 - 45 = 3. If that 3 speed is fast enough for the reload time of rocket bots being slow enough to perform a formation positional cycle between excess rocket bots at the back with the back-most rocket bots in a maximum kiting formation, you can deal damage with rocket bots that are BEHIND the "maximum kiting formation depth" WITHOUT being damaged by the Thugs. In other words, it's a special type of "reloading" that can be performed on the formation level, not the weapon level, based on the relative speed available while keeping kiting against the time-window that the weapon-reload provides for positional cycling. The principle is that once a Rocket Bot shoots, it has less combat value in the kiting formation than a Rocket bot that has NOT yet shot.

oblique kite
#

One observation I'd like to share on The GDT's WIP Tech-Split is there appears to be a pursuit of Use Cases rather than Pain Points.

šŸ“‰ To fail at creating a Tech-Split, do this - get cool new labs, extensively redefine unit roles, force units to fit roles in a more defined manner, build a repository of code to fit a grand vision of how BAR could be better with a Tech-Split. Then hunt for problems to solve. Result? Endless pilots, mixed results, frustrated teams, apathetic and disengaged Community. Why? Use cases don't drive adoption, eliminating real pain points do.

šŸ“ˆ To succeed, listen to what the Community is asking for - Identify and catalogue pain points. Build solutions to directly eliminate them. Result? Immediate positive feedback from the Community. Why? The Community are currently telling anyone that will listen to them what they desperately want and giving them exactly that will be met with joy.

šŸ’‰ What are potential pain points? Co-op, Com drops, Bartery gameplay, Bull rush, Tzar rush, Spybot weakness versus T2, Quaker/Mauser rush, Banisher/Starlight rush.

compact mulch
# oblique kite One observation I'd like to share on **The GDT's WIP Tech-Split** is there appea...

The problem of tunnel vision on existing pain points is that you end up ignoring new pain points. Also, even solving existing pain points can be done in various specific and general ways. For example, we can address bull rush by moving bull to T3, but we can also make T1 units not be tactically useless against bulls, or make the T2 unit that is supposed to counter the bull, actually counter the bull. This variety requires holistic thinking.

oblique kite
#

Failure to address existing pain points will lead to immediate Community rejection and there is no coming back from that

compact mulch
oblique kite
#

You have a window of time which is larger by several magnitudes to address new pain points that are created as a result of solving existing problems than you do to retroactively fix existing pain points that you've failed to address

#

As an anecdote, if you hire an HVAC repairman to come to your house and fix your AC because you are sweltering in the summer heat, and he does too good of a job so now your house is cold, you might be very inclined to call him back and ask him to tweak the AC to make your house less cold.

If he comes over and doesn't fix your AC, you will never call him again.

compact mulch
# oblique kite As an anecdote, if you hire an HVAC repairman to come to your house and fix your...

It's more like when quaker rush is too good (AC is too cold), they come and do the simple fix which is move quaker to T3 (shut off the AC and have it only turn on during the hottest days), then you get mad that they didn't fix the problem in the desired way (to fix the damn AC so it's comfortably cool during semi-hot days). For BAR, there are many stakeholders with different "desired ways". What is the most "desired way" that pain points should be fixed to satisfy the majority of existing and new players?

oblique kite
#

What is simple about moving quaker to T3? It has been a T2 unit for nearly 30 years

near ferry
oblique kite
#

An example of what a simple fix designed to addresses the pain point of Quaker rush could look like might be something along the lines of:
10% turn rate nerf

hardy zodiac
clever jungle
#

I bet we can have a modoption by the end of the month

viral marten
#

This.

#

This thread has been consistently wildly off topic since its inception. Considering the prospect of a hard reboot with a more accurate adjusted premise that's less volatile.

#

There was a crash out earlier with a dense amount of back and forth. Still untangling, but from here on please discuss only how to make the tech split as good as it can be rather than how it interacts with the other coop solutions.

#

@hardy zodiac you've kept up with this thread better than I have. How would you say the premise has evolved over the last month?

hardy zodiac
#

@viral marten It was extremely positive.

Up until the last shit storm that started today. Co-op was mentioned, some ppl derailed the thread, again...
And then toxicity came into play.
We have the 2,5h approval call with Raghna to support us. So I really don't understand why some fellow contributors attack ppl personally.
We should be leading examples of the CoC.

oblique kite
#

I would mostly put 100% of it down to the feeling of misdirection that resulted from this being touted as the solution to coop and then rug pulled as no longer a solution to coop whatsoever but a complete game overhaul that mysteriously has GDT support

#

Itā€™s also not clear what problem this tech-split is actually aiming to solve other than a desire on the part of a small number of people to make t3 units earlier in 1v1 games

#

Those things are both important issues to consider even for players with no stake in 1v1 gameplay when you factor the resources that are being directed towards this split rather than more pressing issues

neon moth
# hardy zodiac <@237979011735617546> It was extremely positive. Up until the last shit storm t...

To me it seemed like a good wake up call to try to rein in scope creep, albeit it was a shock.
When you open a thread about tech-split and the discussion seems to be talking primarily about the roles of units and adjusting t1 units ontop of it, it seems pretty out of scope of "tech-split" because at least for me, I thought that just meant dividing the t2 lab into 2 more labs and doing some minor rebalancing for those units, but not also T1.

There is also a very valid argument to be had, that co-op / commie can skew balance problems heavily too, so a larger scope also means much more potential problems.

As some people pointed out yesterday, it has essentially become an entire overhaul for the game if we're talking and discussing to rebalance T1 units too

oblique kite
#

The feeling of being rug pulled is also becoming symptomatic with the OP of this thread neb, as they originally claimed to be in favor of nerfing coop only to later reveal their love for it and zero desire whatsoever to address the issue.

Basically at this point you have eroded all trust, and it will be a long road to regain that

neon moth
#

Like I think discussion should probably be focused on the "Minimum Viable Product" and get that out the door before expanding the scope further. Splitting the factories and then adding additional T1 unit adjustments, etc.. is a pretty large scope for one modoption. Its basically "do you want to play BAR 2.0 or not" checkbox at that point

hardy zodiac
#

Didn't you read the thread in the dev channel?

1000038176.jpg
oblique kite
clever jungle
hardy zodiac
compact mulch
# neon moth To me it seemed like a good wake up call to try to rein in scope creep, albeit i...

The tech split strategy (3 tech levels of 4 factory types: bot, vehicle, aircraft, ship) was approved and initial roster distribution was drafted, so naturally to now refine and balance the roster distribution it's useful to consider the current unit roles and forecast future potential changes. After the central concept for something was explored (ex. mine behavior), it was responsibly moved into a separate thread; scope has been managed even if the conceptual explorations may have seemed tangential.

oblique kite
#

Yes Iā€™ve tested Raghnaā€™s tech split modadoption

neon moth
oblique kite
#

And Iā€™m in favor of t2 rebalancing to reduce the powerspike of some units

hardy zodiac
oblique kite
#

Thatā€™s an odd question to ask because you yourself do not know what the finished product looks like and youā€™re responsible for creating it

hardy zodiac
#

I am a developer for 15+ years.
You can't know how the finished product looks like before it's done.

clever jungle
viral marten
# hardy zodiac <@237979011735617546> It was extremely positive. Up until the last shit storm t...

You don't need to defend yourself. Doing so just pollutes the thread of its real purpose and encourages more discussion
Agree to disagree and move on. If anybody has concerns about any specific design implication, you can ping me with it and I can bring it to Raghna's attention.
This modoption won't go mainstream without approval from game design team and balance team.
It will be scrubbed clean of pet changes in the process, I'm certain.

viral marten
#

@hardy zodiac requesting again: how has the premise of the thread changed since originally posted?

hardy zodiac
#

Raghna is here. He will use his own words.

calm python
# hardy zodiac Didn't you read the thread in the dev channel?

so here is where the problems start

  1. is that the overall teir split actually stems with discussions not just here but in private channels over what units are and are not supposed to be
  2. everyone is constantly looking at what this is supposed to be and are now confused with the massive scope creeep occuring here
    why is med tank role being decided upon(just as an example)
  3. you call that a meeting but you also admitted to robert not being there fully for that meeting
    this did not breed trust in what is being said by neb at all
    (and yes that is your admition at work)
  4. is that at times this project has been severely missrepresented by you and neb over what its meant to be
  5. is the constant safespacing of this thread from any criticism
    the two most active people here working on the modoption are telling any criticism has to go #1337861239526785064 when the flaw is simply just in the teir split
    telling people to go away and be ignored is something that no one asked for apart from you two.
    it doesnt help that the type of posts that go into the coop thread is actually just saying bye

this thread also deviats heavily from the version that was inside of the internal channels

hardy zodiac
viral marten
#

@clever jungle instead of getting snarky with people who are hostile towards the idea, agree to disagree and move on. Taking the bait is what led to the shitstorm. The only people that need to be convinced are the people you're working under for the modoption. It would be a tremendous relief to me if you and @hardy zodiac can relay the concerns of the naysayers to Raghna.
I'll check in every now and again.

dry temple
#

We're testing, trying out and playing with moving around units and adjusting their power levels to have a smoother transition between the techs with as minimal changes as necessary to achieve that.

Feedback is welcome, including the desire not to change anything, but repeating the same stuff over and over again probably isn't.

neon moth
# oblique kite I would mostly put 100% of it down to the feeling of misdirection that resulted ...

I feel like people have reading comprehension issues if they've been baited by that. The original message even says its primarily to try to address the giga insane powerspike that co-op exacerbates, not a solution to actual commie / co-op itself.

The language though is definitely touting this too much to be a "co-op fix" but people probably immediately think "co-op fix" = actually addressing the ability to share / do the co-op / commie rather than addressing the 1 part of the game that gets exacerbated by co-op / commie

calm python
# neon moth I feel like people have reading comprehension issues if they've been baited by t...

this isnt the case

  1. is that it was clear that this teir split was a resolvement to coop and never a solution to coop
    it was always intended to allow for coop to occur but take out the severe toxicity aspects of coop
  2. is that there is a major issue with project awareness
  3. was the closing of all other coop solution PRs with a hard no on reopening them at the time
    this was reversed later
calm python
clever jungle
viral marten
calm python
# 
First, letā€™s reestablish the community consensus regarding which aspects of co-op are considered unfun, and which would be a shame to lose. Special thanks to Seth and others who helped summarize the arguments and ideas from the extensive discussions šŸ™‚
Unfun Elements of Co-op (in rough order of importance):
Uncounterable rushes ā€“ Due to the power spikes between tech tiers, especially in terms of unit range, situations arise where - even if a player performs extremely well, they canā€™t stop an early-rushed artillery unit. These units can skirmish indefinitely with minimal micro, which feels unjust.

"Battery meta" ā€“ On maps with a clear front and backline, it is often optimal for backline players to forgo building their own units, instead focusing solely on economy and feeding the front. (This saves ~600m on a lab and gets units to the front faster.) Itā€™s easy to see why both battery players and those who donā€™t engage in this meta might find it unenjoyable.

Boosting vital map positions ā€“ Often overlaps with battery play but is not limited to it. This involves creating unfair advantages for teammates in isolated strategic areas (e.g., sea players), allowing them to dominate uncontested and then pressure other parts of the map. We view this as a lesser issue, since in many cases it stems from an opening elsewhere on the map not being exploited by the enemy team.
Widely Appreciated Aspects of Co-op:```
this is what the tier split was meant to address
this is in the op of the internal thread
dusky merlin
viral marten
viral marten
neon moth
# viral marten >:{ I am hurt sir Jokes aside, a thread reboot would clarify that. The scope ha...

A thread reboot would help for sure. The original language mentions co-op too much so people think this is married to co-op, rather than its own thing. Would also help at clarifying the pain points already experienced from current work so far, and that the scope is larger than just splitting out T2, and that it would involve a look at the T1 roster as well to adjust them up to be less weak against T2 (i assume is the intent?)

viral marten
#

If I don't respond there's also Rippsy. I trust him.

dusky merlin
#

this is about feedback for tier split, not moderation issues

viral marten
dusky merlin
#

well I don't know what is being passed on to ragna and what isn't
or if it's being drowned in pages of scope creep

calm python
viral marten
# neon moth A thread reboot would help for sure. The original language mentions co-op too mu...

Now, I'm playing catch-up here so forgive me if I'm off.
It seems to me that as the devs working on this started tearing into this modoption they found there were obvious gaps in the roster and balance issues the premise caused. So they had to course correct making changes as necessary.
Robert and Neb are juiced up and 110% hype and Raghna reigns in the enthusiasm into what he thinks will work.
Then play test, BLT/gdt review.

dusky merlin
viral marten
calm python
viral marten
viral marten
calm python
#

its heavily discussed here and its part of the modotpions proposal
those proposals fundamentally rely on this modoption

neon moth
# viral marten More coordinated feedback. Less discussion. Something someone like Raghna could ...

Try that its own discord channel. One main comment represents feedback. Able to create a thread to discuss for naysayers. Discussion / replies that are posted in the main channel are deleted and told to go to the thread of the original message they are trying to discuss / refute

Essentially keeps the original feedback visible, and the discussion / rebuttals don't clog up the main channel and is quarantined to its own thread for the original message.

calm python
dusky merlin
#

1 reply per iteration seems the best
lets people just edit their response as they play it more, and totally prevents more active people from drowning out the casual (but important) replies. You can also disable emojis reactions on that thread, if that's possible.

viral marten
#

So like, neb or Robert or Raghna declares a new iteration change log and everyone gets one single response?

dusky merlin
viral marten
neon moth
#

Could be worth bringing up, as I'd assume this is a big ticket problem for BAR. Seems like it'd be important enough to warrant its own special little treatment in the Discord to make it easier to admin

Right now I'd say the main issue with these threads is that if no one is gonna janitor and clean up derailments, actual feedback gets buried instantly. Much easier to janitor if all the spam / noise is quarantined to its own thread

calm python
dusky merlin
#

just have the dedicated feedback threads be in suggestion forum for modoptions that require the most player input
like any coop fix or tier split

oblique kite
neon moth
#

o yea, woops this isn't co-op thread xD

clever jungle
#

At this point we just need feedback on unit roles and the new rosters

brave tinsel
#

-# Give us the Legion Commando equivalent

torn walrus
#

exciting times in the tech split co-op solution thread

haughty gust
clever jungle
oblique kite
#

Time to prototype!

heady rain
# viral marten There was a crash out earlier with a dense amount of back and forth. Still untan...

Seth - there was no crash out. Many players came to the thread to share their feedback on tier split (and seemingly unrelated changes proposed in this thread by the originators). Namely that we donā€™t like it and donā€™t see the point of it. Simple as that really.

You can reject the feedback if you guys want. Your call

As you can see from the reactions and comments in the thread the feedback is pretty clear.

#

#1396640349207924746 message

this is basically the reaction of most experienced players to the proposed changes in here. Timkobob is a high level player. Iā€™ll note that autopilot thumbed it up

#

#1396640349207924746 message

this is also a core issue

torn walrus
#

to be fair neb has consistently said that he's pro-coop over several months, to the extent that he thinks it's good if one player controls economy and another only controls units

heady rain
haughty gust
#

It was mentioned that all stat changes are to be 10% or less, but that comment very likely got lost in the noise, and would've been good to include up front when discussing balance changes.

torn walrus
heady rain
#

Yes thatā€™s the problem. It was sold inaccurately as a coop fix and now we all know it was some other pet project with no relevance to anything most players care about or see any issues with.

We like the core TA balance / units / labs. Donā€™t fuck with it. We donā€™t trust the team to do that.

calm python
torn walrus
#

the balance isn't that close to TA right now tbh, it's the product of many iterative changes like this one

but early on I raised the issue of scope creep in getting anything like this through... the more you change the more you have to test, iterate, etc

heady rain
clever jungle
#

We are aware of the issue of scope creep.

calm python
heady rain
#

Considering the original point of this was to resolve coop and thatā€™s a failure this should just be scrapped.

Literally none of the problems highlighted in the original thread will be addressed by this.

calm python
# 

The solution proposed here primarily addresses the issue of _Uncounterable Rushes_ (power spikes). While it also makes battery play and boosting less attractive, it does not fully resolve those issues without additional tweaks, which we are still exploring. We have several ideas under discussion, but no final decision has been made. With that in mind, here's our current proposal:
# Tier Split Solution

The biggest problem currently lies at the interface between T1 and T2 units, where the steepest power spike occurs. Many T2 units hard-counter everything in T1 purely through range (with the exception of the Gauntlet, which is too costly to be viable). In contrast, there is no equivalent problem between T2 and T3, as T2 has various tools that can delay or counter T3 (e.g., Pulsars, Snipers, Mammoths, etc.).

The core idea of this solution is that each tech tier should include tools that allow players to either contest or, at minimum, delay the next tier. To this end, we are developing a **modoption** that would:
clever jungle
#

@viral marten what should we do when someone continues to derail the thread after being asked a few times to stop?

heady rain
#

Makes sense why thereā€™s scope creep when the original scope was just entirely thrown in the trash can

Is driver44 not allowed to talk about the tier split? We are doing that right now.

calm python
# calm python ```## Caveat The solution proposed here primarily addresses the issue of _Uncou... 
  - **T2**: Light T2 units
  - **T3**: Heavy/high-range units
- Make the new T2 lab cheaper, and the new T3 lab more expensive than the current T2 lab.
- Reclassify the current T3 Gantry as **T4**, or simply as ā€œExperimental.ā€
- Make small balance adjustments to units on the tier boundaries to better fit their new placements (e.g., slightly reduce the Houndā€™s range to keep it in T2, while moving Snipers to T3).
- Remove the Seaplanes Lab in its current form, folding its units into the new T2 Air Lab (otherwise there wouldnā€™t be enough aircraft to populate T2 and T3). The new T2 Air Lab will have a naval variantā€”or possibly all tiers will (undecided).

Problematic units currently being rushed in co-op scenarios would become T3. A non-co-op player would generally have access to T2 by the time they face these threats. As a result, instead of unfair matchups like **Tzar vs. Stouts**, youā€™d see **Fiend vs. Stouts** or **Tzar vs. Hounds**, which are much more balanced and skill-dependent engagements.

### Pros
- Smoother progression toward more advanced units and buildings.
- Pushing higher tech via co-op becomes less rewarding and single players can tech up easier as well. 
- More balanced distribution of units across tech tiers.
### Positive Side Effects
- Easier transition to T2 in 1v1 games.
- Cleaner build menusā€”no more 6 units in T1 and 18 in T2, all tiers can fit on one build page of grid layout.
### Cons

- More tiers, labs, and constructor units to manage.
- Sprung will make fun of us :/

omission of some links and irrelevant tasks
reasons are that people should not have those links and the irrelvant taskes became

my posts are of the internal op which is relevant here
this is what the gdt as a whole approved

heady rain
#

The last thing we want is random crap changes being added to the game for no reason. Thatā€™s why we are so pissed off right now about this.

torn walrus
#

it'd be hard to push something like this through if the playerbase really hated it at least, you could reverse all the changes with a tweak

oblique kite
heady rain
#

The feedback has been so overwhelming. Thank you for being open to feedback. šŸ™‚

calm python
# calm python ```- Split T2 into two separate tiers: - **T2**: Light T2 units - **T3**: He...

we esentially have 4 different conversations ongoing in this thread due to the difference of infomation at play
also i had to break up the OP post as i dont have nitro (op post abuser of character limit)
you have the contributors as a whole
you ahve the people working on this stier split
you then have the people who are just paying attention now but remember what was orinally sold
you then ahve the people who are confused by the whole modoption existing
you also have the people who want the identity of ta to be respected and not turn bar into sup com

calm python
# oblique kite

neb is not lying about what the gdt did
his wording is not great
id rather that people give message linkes with the snips of a message instead of just doing what you did

the gdt decided to reverse their decision though which is something that has to be noted

heady rain
#

Yes because if they didnā€™t and pushed this junk you would have no players left

oblique kite
#

fair enough its not my screenshot but i can look for it

calm python
# calm python

the gdt didnt give the authority to change everything about bar
they only gave this authority and actually asked for as minimal of a modoption as possible in later messages
this was not respected here
thats where almost all of the complaints source themselves from

near ferry
#

there are t2 powerspike issues that need to be addressed separately from coop anyways tho no reason to shut down everything there are some good ideas here

but u should address them after u remove coop ofc

oblique kite
#

here we go - this is the start of the relevant thread to my earlier post
#1337861239526785064 message

heady rain
clever jungle
calm python
near ferry
heady rain
#

This thread is about moving units around labs and making additional labs, correct me if Iā€™m wrong there. Thatā€™s what ā€œtier split ā€œ means does it not

near ferry
#

i was under the impression the goal here was to decrease the fast t2 unit rush potential here, not necessarily split labs - although that was an idea. There are lots of other ways to make the choice of early scaling or early unit more weighty. Their idea for splitting labs was you couldnt rush unit B without lab B so it would be harder to rush. But i think that is a bit unnecessary, you can make costs such that rushing a unit is hard, the problem really is mohos are just op with wind being so efficient like every single map

clever jungle
#

The first build was made, issues were identified, and the plan was adjusted. This is how development goes.

formal olive
near ferry
#

why not just make a new thread then

oblique kite
#

Doesnā€™t development actually go more that when you realize what you were asked to doesnt fit within the parameters of what you are permitted to do, you go back to your boss and ask for new parameters?

calm python
clever jungle
#

The scope has not changed from the t1/t2/t3 power spikes and the distribution of rosters

Maybe a new thread with a new brief would clear up confusion.

Our "boss" is raghna and we are working under his directions. The other stuff is just noise from people trying to derail it for whatever agenda they may have.

We are listening to all feedback.

heady rain
#

Thank you for listening to feedback!

It seems to all go in one direction but still

clever jungle
#

We have a clear direction and are sticking to it. A new thread will make sense

calm python
# clever jungle The scope has not changed from the t1/t2/t3 power spikes and the distribution of...

The scope has not changed from the t1/t2/t3 power spikes and the distribution of rosters
the scope indeed has actually changed
Our "boss" is raghna and we are working under his directions. The other stuff is just noise from people trying to derail it for whatever agenda they may have.
the rest of the gdt did actually give that much approval for what raghna did either.
this whole modoption that is being talked about here.

near ferry
#

im fine with moving some units that are strong t2 into a t3 lab but imo u probably need more than just a few units otherwise the roster wont be worth it, you probably need new units if you plan to do something like this, making a lab just for starlights is a bit weird

heady rain
#

Neb if you actually want to improve the game why not focus on the original problem - coop that was the reason for the tier split in the first place?

Why stick with this tier split at all when itā€™s been shown to not be built for purpose?

clever jungle
#

Believe me. We see the importance of making the change as minimal as possible, we won't make something the players hate, that would be a waste of time. Please wait to judge it when you try it

near ferry
#

also a lot of people build army compositions via repeat + unit queue combination: 4 jaguars + 1 starlight + 1 jammer + 1 radar etc, overtime it builds the composition with the ratios you want, but if you are splitting labs you need to split your BP to get the right composition you want, bit a bit different from just changing the build queue since BP is designed to start building until a higher priority target is in range, so either you are micromanaging ur BP heavily or its gonna be difficult to make an army composition that u want with the tools that exist

#

buildqueue management is a skill in bar and it will be disrupted by many labs competiting for bp inside ur base imo, they might focus on an expensive unit for a while and that will cause ur light assault units to ween etc

clever jungle
haughty gust
#

With all of the confusion and drama brewing in here, I feel like it would be prudent to get some people from the GDT to post an update about what the current scope of this tech-split is.
Not just from Raghna either. I have nothing against him, but it would be good for somebody else from the GDT to clarify and make sure that the current Tech-Split team is within-bounds.

heady rain
#

Not only the scope but WHY a tier split? Why not just unit changes? None of it makes any sense to me

viral marten
#

Go afk for 2 hours and this happens?
Let's take a break.

#

I'll sort through this in the morning.

viral marten
#

This is how things are going.
@heady rain this is my best understanding for why the tier split progressed as it did. I have a feeling if neb answered, it'd just come across as more defensiveness and this stuff would spiral further.

#

@calm python this accusational mudslinging isn't welcome here. If you have issues with your fellow contributors raise them internally. This thread went from being about the project to being about the handling of the project.

viral marten
#

I think this thread's haunted with the ill-will of yesterday's šŸ‘Ž. In leu of calling an exorcist, let's move out of the house. This one's staying closed and I'll work with neb, robert82, and raghna to formulate a new thread format where everyone's concerns will be heard without drum-beating.