Balance patch 3696 Feedback Thread

Moderators: Zock, JaggedAppliance

Re: Balance patch 3696 Feedback Thread

Postby Evildrew » 15 May 2018, 13:32

ZLO_RD wrote:i had problem with UEF bombers and sometimes even with arty in the current balance.. i wanted to factory lock, but bomber drops to the side or corner of factory instead of dropping in the middles so unit does not get killed... sometime same happens with arty. i guess if i will really need to make a factory lock i need to groundfire...



Building targeting is done via the target bones. Often the units code is used for the main bone in the center of the model and on the ground of the building and most buildings have several bones that are targeted at random (randomly targeted but units continue firing at the same one unit they are given a new order then it randomly selects a bone to attack again). I presume there were several chosen by the original developers to have better looking battles with buildings being hit in multiple areas instead of one to go with the graphics of them burning in several places.

This is also the problem with the megalith, it has its hitbox above the ground and the bone bombers f.ex. are targeting is on the ground, there a lot of uef/cybran bombs fall underneath it doing reduced damage on attacks. It is also the same problem with why sera destroyers cannot attack a lot of stuff onshore, because the bone they are targeting is on the ground.

To fix this you could go through all the files and change the targetbone to be the one in the middle. You would also have to elevate the targetbone in the 3D model to make sera destroyers have a better chance of hitting something on shore if it doesnt have a suitable targetbone.

Anyway ground fire should do well.
Evildrew
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 159
Joined: 18 Sep 2015, 11:41
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 21 times
FAF User Name: Evildrew

Re: Balance patch 3696 Feedback Thread

Postby JoonasTo » 15 May 2018, 15:02

Why do we even have two different fire modes for the Usha-Ah(sera sniper?)

We've gotten rid of all the other manual modes, let's get rid of this one as well. Make it automatic just like the cybran AA toggles are now. It doesn't make sense to have this one off feature for a single unit in the game.

There's two different options I see for this:
- Make it depend on the target. If there's nothing in range for the default mode or the bot has been given manual command to shoot at a target far away, use ranged mode. Otherwise stick to normal mode.
- Make it depend on if the unit is moving. Default mode while moving and ranged mode while stationary.

First one is user friendly and intuitive but possibly has more taxing code. The second one is really simple code wise but there can be situations the player will want rapid fire even while not moving so it's not as user friendly, as such I think the first option is preferable. Or go extra fancy and implement both.
User avatar
JoonasTo
Priest
 
Posts: 420
Joined: 08 Feb 2015, 01:11
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 72 times
FAF User Name: JoonasTo

Re: Balance patch 3696 Feedback Thread

Postby CommanderA » 15 May 2018, 19:38

So having tried a few games of Beta, I feel the need to add my thoughts here. Thank you to Petric and the other contributors who give up their time to enable us to enjoy FAF, I think we as a community owe you our thanks. However, this balance patch represents some fundamental changes to the game. Whilst it may work for the 1.8k + ladder players, you are effectively asking the more casual gamers to learn what amounts to a new game.

I'm on board for balance changes that need to happen (shield ships) and if you feel that t2 is irrelevant due to the prevalence of the t3 rush then make some incremental changes to address that, but please do not ask us all to learn something so different - and remember that us casual gamers make up 95%+ of the games player base.

You could instead roll out changes slowly, and take feedback at each stage.

I think this should be put to a vote, 100 game minimum for eligibility. After all FAF is a community - we all play games together - give the community a voice.

CommanderA
CommanderA
Crusader
 
Posts: 15
Joined: 16 Jul 2017, 19:14
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 1 time
FAF User Name: CommanderA

Re: Balance patch 3696 Feedback Thread

Postby moonbearonmeth » 15 May 2018, 22:14

May I ask what part of the game is new to you?
You still need mass and energy to build units
Units with guns still do damage
A T2 tank kills a T1 tank and a T3 tank still kills a T2 tank at the end of it all.

You could instead roll out changes slowly, and take feedback at each stage.

Please don't ask for balance patches to happen any slower than they already are.
"If God isn't real then why is my wrist the perfect size to fit in my anus? Checkmate, atheists."

"I made the horrible mistake of hosting a 4v4 tourney"
User avatar
moonbearonmeth
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 213
Joined: 15 Jul 2016, 21:15
Has liked: 85 times
Been liked: 111 times
FAF User Name: Ahegao_PeaceSign

Re: Balance patch 3696 Feedback Thread

Postby FtXCommando » 16 May 2018, 00:08

If you don't want to learn new meta then do what people do in literally every other game. Let the autists farm new viable options for a few weeks and then steal all their hard work. Incremental changes are kinda useless anyway, all of the systems changed in the patch are changed because T3 rebalance would made them op (t4 rush, acu OC, ACU upgrades). I mean it would have been nice to have the patch broken into two like 5 weeks ago with some of the navy changes put in while all the big boy changes were released later. I don't really want to wait yet another 6 months for this patch, so I'd rather just take it all at once now since that option has passed.

Voting is a terrible option, will literally be determined by whether Yuri approves of the patch changes or not.
Exotic_Retard wrote:Fixed in Equilibrium!

Blackheart wrote:Made not shit in Bhedit

Evildrew wrote:please pay attention to me
User avatar
FtXCommando
Priest
 
Posts: 479
Joined: 09 Jan 2017, 18:44
Has liked: 74 times
Been liked: 185 times
FAF User Name: FtXCommando

Re: Balance patch 3696 Feedback Thread

Postby Exotic_Retard » 16 May 2018, 01:04

bbbbut whats wrong with Yuri approving the balance changes? i think its a great idea! All hail Yuri!

something something https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDV9Am5AlYY
I made the terrible mistake of voting for Tokyto_
User avatar
Exotic_Retard
Moderator
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 21 Mar 2013, 22:51
Has liked: 530 times
Been liked: 552 times
FAF User Name: Exotic_Retard

Re: Balance patch 3696 Feedback Thread

Postby JoonasTo » 16 May 2018, 09:54

Can we consider decreasing the cost of the T1 bomber with this nerf?
It's already really pricey and this nerf cuts its effectiveness quite a bit.
User avatar
JoonasTo
Priest
 
Posts: 420
Joined: 08 Feb 2015, 01:11
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 72 times
FAF User Name: JoonasTo

Re: Balance patch 3696 Feedback Thread

Postby Farmsletje » 16 May 2018, 11:37

Better nerf the retardedly OP t1 maa instead
FtXCommando wrote:
need to give him some time to blossom into an aids flower
Farmsletje
Evaluator
 
Posts: 728
Joined: 14 Sep 2016, 18:38
Has liked: 219 times
Been liked: 299 times
FAF User Name: Farmsletje

Re: Balance patch 3696 Feedback Thread

Postby duel gap player » 16 May 2018, 16:15

I don't like the anti air change because it will bring it back to the days when bombers had no counters from ground.

Anti-air should be able to kill a bomber in one pass otherwise it is broken. A sam can kill a startegic bomber in one pass as well and I hear no one complaining about it. People just want their 'I-win' button back.
duel gap player
Crusader
 
Posts: 31
Joined: 16 May 2018, 16:07
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Balance patch 3696 Feedback Thread

Postby Bullydozer » 16 May 2018, 20:10

totally with duel gap player on this. in fact, 1 t1 maa shot should one shot strat bombers.
Bullydozer
Crusader
 
Posts: 35
Joined: 07 Jul 2015, 11:00
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 5 times
FAF User Name: Bullydozer

PreviousNext

Return to Balance Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest