Hey there, we obviously don't have enough threads on how the economy of the game works or works not. So let's add my view. Prepare for a wall of text, tldr at the end This is talking about 1vs1 balance. I generally believe that any other gameplay modes can more or less follow 1vs1 balance, so if 1vs1 balance works well other modes work as well. This is also not as much about "specific unit X is too strong/weak" it is more about the economy basics that lead to interesting play or not. First let's talk about what we had a few month ago. A few month ago players would regularly rush t2. It took 8-10 minutes to really reach t2. During that phase players would start expansions all over the map. Once t2 is reached players would make t2 power and use the expansions to get metal. This resulted in a gameplay that: Had a rather dull build up phase before t2 was reached. Especially since players had to build some resources before they could even make the first factory did not use t1 units, apart from some weak raiding experiments Had massive spamming of t2 units all over the planet Had massive proxy play all over the planet, with multiple t2 bases Now people were unhappy about the first 2 points of this list. I don't know exactly all changes that were made during the following balance phase, but the important points as I see it are: t1 units were buffed in general, the dox was made a very potent and very cheap raiding unit the startup resources were buffed. Players now have enough resources to start directly with 2 factories that produce the newly buffed dox or other t1 What did this do? It removed the initial phase where players would rush t2 and start expansions. Instead players now could build a considerable attack army basically only with the starting resources. This destroyed most expansion play. Why? Because of the relation between the investment required to expand and the investment required to build an army of t1, especially dox, and attack. The cost of a single expansion is at minimum a single fabber building a factory and other stuff. During the t1 phase of the game players are limited by energy. Fabbers cost 1k energy per second. Once the factory of the expansion is finished it costs even more energy. Not to mention you actually want the expansion not to take too long to be up, so you need even more fabbers to build on it. The resulting energy cost easily is as big as the cost to make a very considerable t1 army that could directly attack your opponent. Basically to attack players stay on rather low resources, as attacking does not require as many resources anymore. This makes even a single expansion as expensive as 50% or more of the army you can have in the early game. That 50% of the army can easily kill the expansion before the investment of the expansions returns anything to the player. This issue did not exist before as players would rush up their economy to reach t2. If you have 10k energy by minute 4 in a game then spending 2k energy on expansions from minute 4 onwards is not gonna kill you, especially if you further push out energy to reach 20k income by minute 8. If however you only have 4k energy at minute 4 and 10k at minute 8 then spending 2k energy from minute 4 onwards is gonna half the t1 army you could have, making it impossible to defend. An expansion, just like t2 or orbital is an investment for a players. It pays back after a while. When is an investment in general a good thing to do for a player? The player needs to be able to pay the investment and still have enough resources to produce an army to defend. Defending your home turf is easier than attacking, as your reinforcements have a smaller distance to walk and you are likely to have a stationary radar. This advantage can be used to make investments, as you take away resources from your army and put them into i.e. an expansion or t2. The changes to t1 changed the balance in a way that made the costs for t1 armies so small that players cannot anymore find a good window to invest into expansions as the cost for them is so high that the defenders advantage is not big enough to balance out the fact that you have only half the army your opponent has, as half an t1 army is currently the cost of an expansion. Why are investments a good thing to allow for players? Because they add diversity. Any sort of "interesting" gameplay option like t2, mass expansions, orbital, etc is an investment. Without investments you'll only see people who rush t1 against each other with as less resources as possible. To get back expansion play (as well as other investment based things like t2) we either need to nerf t1 units again, which would heavily risk getting back to rush t2 play, or we need to make expansion cheaper. The investment has to be smaller, so players have a chance to make it and still be able to defend. Here I'd like to bring up the general issue with the energy/metal balance that we have on t1 especially. Short version: It is upside down. Energy limits player growth, until they reach t2 at least. We do not reach t2 for reasons stated above, so in 1vs1 we are limited by energy all game, especially if we want to expand which costs the highest energy cost of anything a player can do. This issue existed in the rush-to-t2 balance as well. It however didn't hurt as much, as players would rush past the t1 phase and t2 power allowed to get somewhat away from the energy limitations. A change I have in my head to try and fix this would be to reduce the cost of all t1 structures (there may need to be exceptions, this is about a rough general idea) to 75%, reduce the t1 engineer build rate to 75% and reduce the t1 engineer energy cost to 50%. This would preserve the build times for buildings, buff engineers as expansion drivers and prevent them from being used to support factories due to the bad ratio of build power to metal cost they have. The aim here is that players should be able to reasonably expand without being limited by energy anymore and reduce the cost of expansion so much that it becomes a smaller chunk of the t1 armies players can build, as explained above in the part about investments. I have a feeling that the reason why the economy is limited by energy like this is because somebody thought "we need to prevent this from exponentially rush away out of control". If this should become an issue the per mex metal income should be reduced. Limit players by metal not by energy. Why? Because limited metal means players are forced to expand and fight for territory. I don't think I have to argue why that is interesting gameplay-wise. Limiting players by metal also brings back the basis for a mechanic from SupCom and TA: Reclaiming. In PA units wrecks were completely removed a while back. They seemed useless. Why were the useless? Wrecks gave metal and cost energy. Since players are limited by energy at t1 wrecks were a waste of energy to reclaim at t1 and gave a resources players had too much of anyway. At t2 wrecks were insignificant compared to t2 economy. Wrecks actually were overkilled most of the time Wrecks blocked paths badly and screwed over pathfinding My answers to the 3 points are: Reclaiming should not cost energy at all. However it may be worth an experiment to try and have the 50% energy engineers still use energy when reclaiming, but have the combat fabbers use no energy at all. So players can build those to reclaim stuff. Might need some tweaks, but it's an idea I have. Might not work, in that case: Make reclaiming free and ensure the changes to t1 engineers and the metal/energy balance mean players are mostly limited by metal so wrecks are a welcome extra metal snack. The 2 next issues are one issue imho. Wrecks should not interact with weapons and units as much as they did. I think the best solution would be to make units be destroyed to a level of smaller metal pieces that lie rather flat on the ground. Any unit can just walk over it and shots either don't hit it or the pieces have high hp values that prevent overkill from destroying them What good does this do? It improves the defenders advantage. So a player can do a bigger investment in relation to the army size (or rather army cost). Why does it improve the defenders advantage? Currently if you and your opponent have 50 dox than attacking is practically without risk. You charge in, try to kill stuff in running past it and avoid conflicts that are unfavorable. Worst case you exchange your dox for his dox and maybe kill a few structures or fabbers while doing so. If the economy were limited by metal and the destroyed dox would leave wrecks that can be reclaimed to get more metal, let's say 60% of what they cost to build, you would risk to give your opponent the resources to build 60 extra dox. As your and his 50 dox are destroyed close to your opponents base. A player would need to think before attacking: Can I either attack without losing anything or can I attack and destroy so much that the wrecks my attack will leave are okay in relation to that? This makes attacking harder and therefore investments like expansions and t2 easier. About t2: Imho players should be in need to go t2 either: If they want to play with t2 units in some way, so i.e. do some form of rush. This should be viable, but does not have to be easy and may be situation dependent and is a lot about the balance between fighting units as well as the "unit specialization" minefield, which is not the topic of this post. want to grow their economy once all t1 mex are taken, so only t2 mex can further grow it.