<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Supreme Commander Talk &#187; balance</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.supcomtalk.com/tag/balance/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.supcomtalk.com</link>
	<description>Transporting our ACUs to your base since 2007</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 03:03:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>An overview of the current perceived game balance</title>
		<link>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2010/03/15/an-overview-of-the-current-perceived-game-balance/</link>
		<comments>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2010/03/15/an-overview-of-the-current-perceived-game-balance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:49:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Cyde Weys</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Discussion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Multiplayer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[balance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gunships]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.supcomtalk.com/?p=473</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A brief look at the GPGnet forums yields a wide variety of inevitable claims of ways in which Supreme Commander 2 is imbalanced.  Here&#8217;s a look at these claims, and a brief analysis of each one.  Of course, I&#8217;d like to hear your opinions as well in the comments below &#8212; especially if [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2010/03/15/an-overview-of-the-current-perceived-game-balance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mass converters considered harmful</title>
		<link>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2010/03/14/mass-converters-considered-harmful/</link>
		<comments>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2010/03/14/mass-converters-considered-harmful/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:30:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Cyde Weys</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Discussion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[balance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mass converter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nerf]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.supcomtalk.com/?p=460</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Let&#8217;s be honest, Supreme Commander had severe balance problems with mass fabricators.  They were simply too good, and rapidly obviated the need for map control.  They replaced strategic fights for mass points with ugly, exponentially growing resource farms.
Forged Alliance rectified the issue somewhat by nerfing mass fabricators (and removing the T1 mass fabricator [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2010/03/14/mass-converters-considered-harmful/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Addressing the issue of naval imbalance</title>
		<link>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/06/18/addressing-the-issue-of-naval-imbalance/</link>
		<comments>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/06/18/addressing-the-issue-of-naval-imbalance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2007 03:03:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Cyde Weys</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ideas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[balance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[destroyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[naval balance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[navy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sea control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[submarine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Commander]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/06/18/addressing-the-issue-of-naval-imbalance/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Something is off with the naval balance in Supreme Commander, as I&#8217;m sure everyone who&#8217;s ever played a naval map is aware.  Submarines are just too powerful.  On a per-mass basis, they are by far the most effective unit at taking control of the high seas.  Until sea control is established, experienced [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/06/18/addressing-the-issue-of-naval-imbalance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>37</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why big maps don&#8217;t work</title>
		<link>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/05/30/why-big-maps-dont-work/</link>
		<comments>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/05/30/why-big-maps-dont-work/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2007 17:49:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Grokmoo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ideas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[balance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scale]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Commander]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/05/30/why-big-maps-dont-work/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As we have discussed previously on the site, the current game mechanics of Supreme Commander don&#8217;t really allow for proper battles at very large scales.  In principle, fleets of battleships could engage each other or enemy bases, since individual battleships are such massive, powerful units.  However, on large maps, it is just not [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/05/30/why-big-maps-dont-work/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More confirmed news about the patch</title>
		<link>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/25/more-confirmed-news-about-the-patch/</link>
		<comments>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/25/more-confirmed-news-about-the-patch/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:16:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Cyde Weys</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[balance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[play balance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Commander]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tech 2]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tech 3]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[update]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/25/more-confirmed-news-about-the-patch/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We don&#8217;t yet know when the patch is coming out (and indeed, we probably won&#8217;t know until it actually happens), but there are some things we do know.  For one, the patch has been undergoing testing for about a week now.  Gas Powered Games set up a separate beta/testing server and granted access [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/25/more-confirmed-news-about-the-patch/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Patch decoupling</title>
		<link>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/18/patch-decoupling/</link>
		<comments>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/18/patch-decoupling/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:00:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Grokmoo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ideas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[balance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Multiplayer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rankings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Commander]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/18/patch-decoupling/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As I am certain everyone knows, there is a major SupCom patch due out (supposedly) within a few days.  I am hoping I am proven wrong, but I somehow get the feeling that we may be waiting a little bit longer yet.  As Jotto wrote about the other day, this patch will include [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/04/18/patch-decoupling/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why is tech 1 AA completely useless?</title>
		<link>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/03/30/why-is-tech-1-aa-completely-useless/</link>
		<comments>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/03/30/why-is-tech-1-aa-completely-useless/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:12:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Grokmoo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[balance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bombers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Commander]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/03/30/why-is-tech-1-aa-completely-useless/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The title says it all.  Why is it that literally a dozen or even more tech 1 mobile AA pieces can easily take several minutes to take down a single bomber?  This is not even the worst case; they are literally completely useless against tech 1 interceptors.  While a few tech 1 AA pieces admittedly [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/03/30/why-is-tech-1-aa-completely-useless/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

