Idea: Different T2/T3 HQ Costs

[Deribus]

A large point of contention with the upcoming T3 Land Patch is the Aeon Harb rush. This is the main option for Aeon land in the mid-game, and it gives them an advantage in the early-late game. So, I had a potential idea that I thought could be discussed: What if T2 and T3 HQ upgrades varied per faction? This could solve some issues along with increasing faction diversity.

Aeon (Land):
-Make T3 HQ more expensive in order to nerf Harb rush quite a bit
-Possibly lower T2 HQ cost in order to encourage Aeon T2 use*

Sera/UEF (Land):
-Increase T2 HQ cost in order to lower the advantage that these two factions have at T2*

Cybran (Land):
-Decrease T2 HQ cost, as this faction has undoubtedly the worst T2*

*Increase/Decrease the T3 HQ cost in order to keep the total cost the same

We would also need to rebalance HQ health to make the health closer represent the mass cost. So, what are your opinions on this change? Is it a good idea to at least test? Or does the earlier/later access to higher tech [engineers] create many more issues than this would solve?

[Mephi]

So about balancing using the cost of HQs vs rebalancing units, I'll first say that taking one approach for T2 HQs does not mean that the same approach must be used for T3 HQs. The problems are separate, there is no logical reason that because in the past we increased the cost of T2 HQs to alter the balance between T1 and T2, that we must now take the same approach when altering T2 vs T3.

Second, alterations have already been made to the T3 HQ. Its buildtime was increased from 9400 → 11000. Also when the T2 HQ cost was increased it also increased the total cost of getting to T3 because ofc you must make a T2 HQ to get T3 HQ. Obviously these did essentially nothing to stop T3 rushing from being a favourite and powerful strategy of many players on a large number of maps.

We are not completely ruling out alterations to the T3 HQ, however we are sure that simply changing the T3 HQ will not have the desired effects, so we are committed to making changes to the T3 units. The fundamental problem in our eyes is that T3 units are too strong vs T2, so we will attempt to address this first. We may make subsequent alterations to the HQ but we are focused on the units the themselves atm and it is too early to say whether HQ changes will be necessary. Given that we find the problem to be the effectiveness of T3 tanks vs T2 tanks basically, altering the HQ is an imprecise way of dealing with this because it will affect the cost of getting T3 mobile arty to defeat ravagers, the cost of T3 engies for SAM launchers, or T3 Mobile anti-air. It's a blunt instrument.

[Deribus]

Ah, I didn't realize that had been mentioned before. However, it also doesn't mention the potential for different costs between factions. Would that be a potential way to increase faction diversity?

[Steel_Panther]

I'll first say that taking one approach for T2 HQs does not mean that the same approach must be used for T3 HQs. The problems are separate, there is no logical reason that because in the past we increased the cost of T2 HQs to alter the balance between T1 and T2, that we must now take the same approach when altering T2 vs T3.

The same logic can be applied for faction diversity as well. There is no reason each HQ must be the exact same price, but the engineer issue matters, particularly at the t2 stage for tmd and tml. Since tml is such a powerful weapon that could continuously snipe upgrading factories, I doubt it would be a good idea to vary the t2 hq costs, but I don't think it's as big of an issue for the t3 hq. It would be consistent with having faction diversity and another method of balancing the game, but perhaps not the optimal way.