Pre-August 2016 balance mod EDI suggestions

Pre-August 2016 balance mod EDI suggestions

Postby Evildrew » 11 Mar 2018, 13:49

Hi,

This is the thread for making suggestions about what things can/should be changed to improve units/gameplay.
I will list some proposals I have received and/or have come to see be potential areas of improvements.

1) T3 Omni radar:
Issue:
It has been mentioned that with the navy intel rework, Omni radar has become more more valuable than T3 sonar.

Solution:
The most likely best solution is to reduce the omni range from 200 to either 100 or 150 without nerfing the 600 range of its radar to better achieve the goal of making subs more valuable by being less detectable. As radar doesnt see under water units whereas omni does, this new dynamic would give sonar a dedicated role of detecting subs and radar being mainly detecting above surface objects.

Side effects:
Monkey Lords' stealth will make them detectable later than before without scouting, as well as cybran Stealth boats and deceivers' stealth proficiency improving.


2) Fuel of aircraft:
I want to revisit the fuel time planes have mainly focusing on T3 as I think the 25 mins of Strategic bombers and 16 mins of ASF is ridiculous as compared to the 8 mins on F/Bs and 5/6 mins on t1 interceptors and bombers.
T1 & t2 &T3 Transports having roughly the same 13 mins of fuel also doesn't suit my taste but it has to be noted too that they do not have a refueling option so maybe then it doesn't matter and 13 mins will be enough for their lifetime.

Solution:
I am thinking of strategic bombers having 15 mins fuel and ASF 12 mins fuel.

3) Maxspeed of ASF and T3 scouts:
It has been mentioned that ASF and T3 scouts are insanely fast compared to all other air units. T3 scouts have a speed of 30, ASF 25, Strategic bombers & t1 scouts 17, Swiftwinds 18, F/B & interceptors T2 transports 15, T1 bombers & T1 transports 10.

The questions are; What should be the premium of fighter planes over bombers/transports (the current 50%? or less). What should the speed of F/Bs be given they are a hybrid and there is no pure T2 bomber to compare them to?

Discussion point:
T3 Scout speed = 30 --> 25
Reflecting a speed premium at T3 of around 13.5% of T3 scouts over ASF in line with the dynamic between T1 interceptor and T1 scout.

ASF speed = 25 --> 22
Reflecting an approximate 30% speed premium of T3 fighters over T3 strategic bombers

T1 bombers speed = 10 --> 12
Reflecting a speed premium of T1 interceptors over bombers of 25% more in line with the suggested T3 ASF/T3 bomber dynamic

F/B speed = 15 --> 16
This thought of +1 speed for F/Bs I have is really hard to explain. As they are inferior to T1 interceptors in terms of cost, a player obviously would like the option to retreat rather than being forced to sacrifice them in an air-fight. Swiftwinds have a 50% speed premium over T1 bombers under the above suggestion, therefore ASF having more of a 40% (22 vs 16, instead of almost 50% taking 22 vs 15) seems justifiable given that the F/B has some fighter in it.

But here the explanation goes. If we assume their was a T2 bomber, its speed would lie between that of the T1 and T3 (at 10 respectively 17), it would have a speed of 13, reflecting a compound 30% increase throughout the tech stages.
At the new suggested speeds it would be 14.4 and T3 strat would have 17.28 assuming a 20% compound growth.
In any case, as a hybrid, the T2 f/B would have a speed between that and the swiftwind, i.e. the average between 13/18 --> 15.5 or the average between 14.4/18 --> 16.2


4) RAS vs T3 pgen:
Some players have expressed that they like/have become familiar with the new meta making power a more targetable strategic object. Indeed RAS was a superior choice eco wise in pre-august balance. Some people have come up with alternatives as to what RAS should be, I may look into doing some math here.

After some calculations I came to a similar line of conclusion as the official balance nerf, however I believe that what the official nerf does not consider is that RAS is not only a source for energy, but also for mass. Having nerfed only the energy makes the game more eco/mass driven rather than unit/strategy driven as the rates of return on mass extractors in the long term are greater than on energy.

As examples, the following income values would be equivalent based on 1 mass at T3 equaling about 154 energy:

8 Mass 3300 Energy
10 Mass 3000 Energy
12 Mass 2700 Energy
14 Mass 2400 Energy
16 Mass 2100 Energy
18 Mass 1800 Energy

With there values RAS would still be superior despite similar returns of T3 pgen (+1 adjacency bonus on T3 air factory) as RAS can be achieved at the T2 stage where energy is worth more than at T3. T3 pgens however are still good because they have the adjacency bonus on air factories which scale up as the air grid expands and the returns on a T3 Pgen would in theory still be superior with 1 adjacency on T3 airfactory making ASF if RAS and the T3 pgen were achieved at the same time.

I would be in favor of the first 4 mass/energy scenarios, than the last 4 which are close to the official balance making RAS a more mass heavy upgrade.

5) Some players mentioned Aoen Battleship is extremely weak. After some testing I found this to be true given the price/performance metrics. It did perform equivalently in direct combat with a battle cruiser costing 7k mass instead of the 9k mass of the Aoen battleship. I found that despite the 20 range advantage of the battleship, the battlecruiser was able to dodge the initial incoming shots at far range before getting in range itself. The battle cruiser has some issues with targeting when being micro'ed making its effectiveness lessened when micro'ed while in firing range. A 4 v4 was also tested micro'ing only the battle cruiser as I assume the laser beams it fires are undodgeable not needing Aoen Battleships to be micro'ed for testing. They almost performed equally. In testing it did seem that the battleship would survive on give or take 5% of its HP making it a slight favorite, but not enough to justify a 2k mass premium a piece given its poor performance vs a UEF battleship.
A possible solution would be to test whether changing its cost to 7k mass 60k energy like the UEF battleship will make players feel it is a better value. This is a change that I am willing to test to see how players perform with it on a larger navy map.
Evildrew
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 165
Joined: 18 Sep 2015, 11:41
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 21 times
FAF User Name: Evildrew

Return to FAF Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest