EA Staff (Retired)Even at high rank play the level differences are frustrating, because a lot of strategy and tactics assumes some basic ability to predict how units will interact - what trades with what, what counters what, etc.
A huge impact for example was that at level 7 Nod Bikes can kill an Orca in a single volley. Prior to that level that and the 3 bike missiles leave the Orca slightly alive (which leaves the Orca still a threat given how it works). If a Nod player is running a deck and relying solely on Bikes as their AA, I should be able to punish that with clever Orca usage. However, if they have higher level bikes then it basically becomes a hard counter.
Given the way the game works, when a level difference changes the balance between how units counter each other to this degree it's just frustrating. This is also very noticeable with how Bikes work against harvestors - the levels dictate whether it takes 3 or 4 volleys to kill a harvestor. This can decide games given how strong harvestor harassment is and how much getting an early 100 tiberium can snowball games.
In the latest patch most everybody is running very similar decks because Rhino and Buggy got overtuned along with Jackson/Oxanna. This results in a lot of mirror matches where players are countering each other with basically the same units - Bikes and Tanks vs. Bikes and Tanks - and it becomes noticeable how level differences affect the outcome.
As someone who only plays Solomon, unless dailies require a different commander. I find Dr. Liang to be far more troublesome then Jackson/Oxanna. Personally, I feel Dr. Liang should be a mid-late game commander, I don't see a reason why his drone needs to be effective during the early stages when it would add more thought to the player on how they should play against certain commanders.The current state of the game is extremely stale, I've had way too many Attack Bikes/Tanks vs Pitbulls which with proper grouping and micro, the Pitbulls will eventually take control of the map.
I don't see a issue with the amount the harvester gives, scouting before you build your harvester can solve a early rush on it.
I'm sorry, but you cannot call this an RTS in its current state. I'll explain why.
My opponent and I start off with harvestors into vehicle factories. He spams pitbulls and I counter with bikes. He spends all his resources zerging my harvestors while I cost effectively take down his pitbulls. But the 1 to 2 shots they get (certain maps is unavoidable) allows him to score a harvestor and now he is vastly ahead.
There's no strategy in this games state (ONLY ON CERTAIN MAPS). I love this game but I wont hesitate to drop it for the insane harvestor award.
The current state of harvestors makes missile control pointless. If you are able to be the harvestor hunter, you win the missiles by default.
Please tell me another RTS where killing harvestors/ workers gives bonus resources. The fact that you killed it is a huge blow in and of itself. The 100 tiberium reward is extremely excessive. Please realize this. At the very least it should only occur once.
I love this game and it is my favorite mobile game but I seriously cannot get behind this mechanic. In my matches once a harvestor is down thats it. 95% of the games are lost at that point. The fact that I dedicated all my resources to defending it MEANWHILE I am punished for that fact is nonsensical.
The death of a harvestor means the match is decided. The only way the killer can lose is by a HUGE blunder on his part. (Which does happen) Do you really want to create an "RTS" where the ONLY way someone who is behind can win is if the opponent makes a gigantic mistake? The potential to comeback is what makes an RTS. It is the reason starcraft broodwar spawned all of ESports.
I don't necessarily disagree/agree with how harvesters currently work but if we assume the other design, where killing a harvester offers no reward but requires the player to rebuild the harvester for the original cost, the snowball effect would be drastically worse since if they kill your harvester, they already put you behind and if you have to spend the 60 tiberium to rebuild the harvester, you put yourself even further behind while they continue to apply so much pressure that there is nothing you can do to fight back since they now have economy advantage as well as unit advantage.
I think the 2nd harvester should ALWAYS cost tiberium, while the first remains as it is (Cost first build, free afterwards). This would make double harvester extremely risky since they risk putting themselves behind in order to get ahead but removes how heavily the game could snowball since the player isn't heavily punished for the first harvester.
