uef/cyb vs sera/aeon

[Zock]

This thread is to discuss everything regarding the faction balance. Please make sure to read the overview and rules first: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=5681

In specific, but not exclusive:

Aeon early t1 in general (Aurora)
UEF early/midgame vs aeon (Mongoose, Lobo, bomber, other?)
UEF/Cyb vs Aeon/Sera on small watermaps (Jester, UEF Bomber, Fobo?, sera destroyer (discussion for that one in other thread))

[IceDreamer]

@Pip - What is the DPS and total Damage you were aiming for with the UEF T1 Bomber? I said before, DOTTime = 2.5 with DOTPulses = 10 won't give you 10 pulses, it will give only 9. Unfortunately it's very hard to prove this to you (Or to myself for that matter) because the AOE makes counting the pulses from one bomb very tricky. I keep getting 11 and 12...

EDIT - OK I'm wrong, you get 10 pulses... I don't think it's quite how you want it though. The 10 Pulses happen in 1 seconds, 0.1 seconds apart each time, not at all what I was expecting. Therefore, is there any reason to keep DoTTime = 2.5?

[pip]

EDIT - OK I'm wrong, you get 10 pulses... I don't think it's quite how you want it though. The 10 Pulses happen in 1 seconds, 0.1 seconds apart each time, not at all what I was expecting. Therefore, is there any reason to keep DoTTime = 2.5?

Are you sure? If you test with speed -10, it seems to me that damages are dealt over more than 2 seconds. If I change DoTTime to 5, damages will be clearly spread for 5 seconds, not just 1 second.

[IceDreamer]

Sure as I can be. I set a bomber up with your damage and other values, set MuzzleSalvoSize to 1 so I could be exact and eliminate other bombs getting in the way. I slowed to -10 and all the damage was dealt in 1 second. Multiple tests.

It makes more sense with the math too... With your values, if it tried to spread it evenly, you'd end up with only 9 pulses. 2.5 seconds with 10 pulses is 0.25 seconds per pulse, rounded up to 0.3 thanks to the 0.1s ticks. You get a damage pulse at 0, 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, 1.2, 1.5, 1.8, 2.1, 2.4 and then WHOOPS time's up before the 10th tick...

Your values give the intended 70 Damage, but the math says that it's not being dealt over 2.5s, that is cannot be being dealt over 2.5... Which is a shame, cos I'd really prefer that to be the case :/


Either way using 10 pulses across 2.5s is just messy. Change it to 2 seconds?

[pip]

Sure as I can be. I set a bomber up with your damage and other values, set MuzzleSalvoSize to 1 so I could be exact and eliminate other bombs getting in the way. I slowed to -10 and all the damage was dealt in 1 second. Multiple tests.

It makes more sense with the math too... With your values, if it tried to spread it evenly, you'd end up with only 9 pulses. 2.5 seconds with 10 pulses is 0.25 seconds per pulse, rounded up to 0.3 thanks to the 0.1s ticks. You get a damage pulse at 0, 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, 1.2, 1.5, 1.8, 2.1, 2.4 and then WHOOPS time's up before the 10th tick...

Your values give the intended 70 Damage, but the math says that it's not being dealt over 2.5s, that is cannot be being dealt over 2.5... Which is a shame, cos I'd really prefer that to be the case :/


Either way using 10 pulses across 2.5s is just messy. Change it to 2 seconds?

Try chaging the damage over time to 10 seconds, and you will see that all damages are clearly dealt over 10 seconds, that's what this function does. It's not one second, period.

I know and you admit that the intended result is currently already achieved. Maybe due to how the engine works, it's 2.6 seconds instead of 2.5, whatever it's not very important. If you insist, I don't mind adjusting the dottime to 2 seconds instead of 2.5 if that can satiate your weird lust for round numbers, it doesn't change much, just leaves a tiny bit less reaction time for the targetted units to move away from the fire.

[IceDreamer]

That would satisfy my OCD very nicely

[lebensnebel]

Could someone post a replay showing that auroras are op? As zock stated, they have to be better than other t1 if the conditions are right (high unit number, flat terrain, only t1 tanks vs auroras) to compensate that they fall off/are countered hard by t1 air, t1 arty, t2 bots and pd.

So I would like to see a replay where aeon spams auroras and the other one spams t1 bombers and still fails!

Regarding sera, I would agree that the arty is pretty strong on navy maps, at least against players of my level.
Watch replay UID 1480438

ps: how do I upload a replay? :-/

[Master_Vallex]

Could someone post a replay showing that auroras are op? As zock stated, they have to be better than other t1 if the conditions are right (high unit number, flat terrain, only t1 tanks vs auroras) to compensate that they fall off/are countered hard by t1 air, t1 arty, t2 bots and pd.

So I would like to see a replay where aeon spams auroras and the other one spams t1 bombers and still fails!

Regarding sera, I would agree that the arty is pretty strong on navy maps, at least against players of my level.
Watch replay UID 1480438

ps: how do I upload a replay? :-/

well there is no doubt along the pro ranges that aurora is bit too strong on raiding options along water maps since the new handleing
its mostly about the early raiding where there sure as hell wont be PDs or t2

[Ze_PilOt]

well there is no doubt along the pro ranges that aurora is bit too strong on raiding options along water maps since the new handleing

I don't really see what's the relation between raiding and being able to retreat faster.

The main change with aeon is that they are played now. Aurora are not a lot (just a little) better than before, but people are re-discovering that they are in the game.

I remember a time in GPG where people were able to kill aurora with bombers, and that was before they were made cheaper and more accurate.
Now, I barely see anyone trying to use the right counter for them. Is there actually any replay of someone trying to counter aurora properly and failed?
Without even talking of countering properly, how many players are actually mixing scouts with their tanks to have radar coverage except aeon players?


For seraphim arty, I still don't agree with the "attention required" to counter them, or people are even more lazy than I though.
You just need to queue a dozen of random move order in the general direction of the arties, done.

Sure it's more than the single move order necessary for the seraphim player, but on the other hand, he loses hundred of mass + his army while you lose barely anything...

There are two maps were fobo are really annoying for me in 1v1 : Eye of the storm and haven reef. Because they can hit any mass point from water.
In the case of Eye of the storm, it requires way more micro for the seraphim player (dropping arties all over the place), and in the case of haven, it's close to the base so you can quite easily counter it.

its mostly about the early raiding where there sure as hell wont be PDs or t2

Then maybe it's time to make the labs back in the game instead of trying to change things that works?

If 2 labs beat one tank (whatever the faction is), the problem is solved.
It was the case before, it's not anymore. That's probably where the problem is.
I almost never see the classic "2 labs 1 scout" early raid play anymore.

[Ze_PilOt]

Maybe I should do a resume of what I think :

You can't nerf things just because people whine about it.
If the counter exists, if they are not OP if the player is playing properly, there is no need to do anything.

The fact that people can't play the game properly is one thing. If you nerf the unit, they will never learn.
You don't make the game better or more balanced, you just decrease the level of gameplay. That's not necessarily a bad thing if the game is really complicated, but here we are talking of basic concepts (how to use units. That's what a realtime strategy game is about).

BUT what they will learn is that whining works.

Actually, that guy write it better than me:
http://www.sirlin.net/blog/2013/3/3/the ... -do-x.html

If you do that, you'll move some things in the wrong direction sometimes, and you'll weaken things that weren't too strong or strengthen things that weren't too weak.

Another thing Blizzard has mentioned is that if you change stuff every time any balance claim is made, you end up training your players to not look very hard for counters. You train them to rely on you, the developer, as a crutch and they might not be reaching the higher level of play they should reach before making the claim in the first place.

So Blizzard's point is some temperance is required: you do want to make changes, but only when they are warranted.