Balance

Moderator: JaggedAppliance

Re: Balance

Postby JaggedAppliance » 27 Nov 2015, 17:15

Try making threads on specific topics in future rather than your own list of pet peeves so the thread doesn't turn into a clusterfuck. Also, there is a balance forum.
"and remember, u are a noob, u don’t have any rights to disagree" - Destructor

My Youtube channel with casts > https://www.youtube.com/c/jaggedappliance
My Twitch > https://www.twitch.tv/jaggedappliance
JaggedAppliance
Councillor - Balance
 
Posts: 641
Joined: 08 Apr 2015, 14:45
Has liked: 734 times
Been liked: 313 times
FAF User Name: JaggedAppliance

Re: Balance

Postby ZeRen » 27 Nov 2015, 18:43

funny, you looking here only at Cybrans´s advantage, but not on their weaknesses
User avatar
ZeRen
Evaluator
 
Posts: 641
Joined: 03 Aug 2014, 08:22
Has liked: 154 times
Been liked: 49 times
FAF User Name: ZeRen

Re: Balance

Postby BRNKoINSANITY » 27 Nov 2015, 21:24

The reason t3 arty is so much stronger than it used to be is that the shields were nerfed. With the transfer damage introduced about 2 years back, shields now have a really hard time standing up to t3 arty. The nerf was introduced to lessen the impact of firebase creeps, since shields would fail quicker, and to prevent "invincible" late game bases and t3 UEF navy. Instead of discussing a ton of different units and abilities, you need to talk about whether the shield transfer should be reduced or eliminated.
BRNKoINSANITY
Evaluator
 
Posts: 951
Joined: 09 Oct 2012, 01:14
Has liked: 43 times
Been liked: 207 times
FAF User Name: BRNKoINSANITY

Re: Balance

Postby yeager » 27 Nov 2015, 22:13

Pretty spot on Brink, I think t2 shields and the bulwark are fine, but it would be nice if t3 shields as well as mobile shields did better.
User avatar
yeager
Evaluator
 
Posts: 542
Joined: 12 Apr 2015, 03:07
Has liked: 43 times
Been liked: 32 times
FAF User Name: Yeager

Re: Balance

Postby zeroAPM » 27 Nov 2015, 22:21

BRNKoINSANITY wrote:The reason t3 arty is so much stronger than it used to be is that the shields were nerfed. With the transfer damage introduced about 2 years back, shields now have a really hard time standing up to t3 arty. The nerf was introduced to lessen the impact of firebase creeps, since shields would fail quicker, and to prevent "invincible" late game bases and t3 UEF navy. Instead of discussing a ton of different units and abilities, you need to talk about whether the shield transfer should be reduced or eliminated.


If i may interject for a moment i'd see more fitting for the shield grid to "act as one" to a certain extent.
This means that instead of generating additional damage, the damage is simply transferred between shields (100 damage coming, 100 damage dealt).

Though this also means that if even a single shield has been hit, the entire grid must wait for it's regeneration to kick in before they can regen.

This also open the door for many kind of interactions: do shields interact with every shield that is connected to them or only up to their Nth neighbor (ie: "up to 3 shields away")? is the distribution of damage based on absolute numbers or percentages? Does it happens instantaneously or does it takes some time to balance itself and, if the latter, what happens when a shield is brought down (either by destruction or EMP)? Does it screws up the whole grid bit time?

The shield disruptor could inflict a extra X damage to every shield in the grid (since, y'know, it's its job).


Rudolph'sRedNose wrote:
tatsu wrote:Why is it that air is immune to it when landed?

Faraday cage


If the plane is landed then it's touching the soil, just like tanks.
Also, the current might be melting the cage due to Ohm's Law (in this case the "cage" would be the armor/fuselage).
zeroAPM
Priest
 
Posts: 452
Joined: 21 May 2014, 20:39
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 52 times
FAF User Name: Impressingbutton

Re: Balance

Postby BRNKoINSANITY » 27 Nov 2015, 23:32

I do think the shields need to be addressed, because currently damage is dealt beyond the capability of the weapon striking the shield.

For example, if you have 6 t3 seraphim shields and an awhassa dropps a bomb where the AOE spreads to all 6, then the 11,000 damage bomb does some 16,500 damage to each shield. 11,000 plus 1,100 overflow from each shield to the other 5. This really screws over bases because you are actually better off with one shield than 2-10. I think the mentality behind reducing shield effectiveness is probably a good one, but we need to rethink the damage transfer. It needs to be accomplished through slower regen or lower HP, or perhaps just simply nerfing the Bulwark by itself and leaving everything else alone.
BRNKoINSANITY
Evaluator
 
Posts: 951
Joined: 09 Oct 2012, 01:14
Has liked: 43 times
Been liked: 207 times
FAF User Name: BRNKoINSANITY

Re: Balance

Postby zeroAPM » 28 Nov 2015, 00:35

BRNKoINSANITY wrote:I do think the shields need to be addressed, because currently damage is dealt beyond the capability of the weapon striking the shield.

For example, if you have 6 t3 seraphim shields and an awhassa dropps a bomb where the AOE spreads to all 6, then the 11,000 damage bomb does some 16,500 damage to each shield. 11,000 plus 1,100 overflow from each shield to the other 5. This really screws over bases because you are actually better off with one shield than 2-10. I think the mentality behind reducing shield effectiveness is probably a good one, but we need to rethink the damage transfer. It needs to be accomplished through slower regen or lower HP, or perhaps just simply nerfing the Bulwark by itself and leaving everything else alone.


The current shield overlap thingamajig actually checks if the attack hit multiple shields and disables the Damage Jesus Overspill
zeroAPM
Priest
 
Posts: 452
Joined: 21 May 2014, 20:39
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 52 times
FAF User Name: Impressingbutton

Re: Balance

Postby BRNKoINSANITY » 28 Nov 2015, 03:55

Then it must not work vs awhassa, because the t4 bomber still does it.
BRNKoINSANITY
Evaluator
 
Posts: 951
Joined: 09 Oct 2012, 01:14
Has liked: 43 times
Been liked: 207 times
FAF User Name: BRNKoINSANITY

Re: Balance

Postby Aulex » 28 Nov 2015, 07:04

BRNKoINSANITY wrote:Then it must not work vs awhassa, because the t4 bomber still does it.

Works fine, the shield overlap is very reasonable, this game doesn't need to be more turtley
How about people stop randomly bringing up stupid balance changes, do some tests, show some evidence.
Attachments
4122659-Aulex.fafreplay
(3.44 KiB) Downloaded 67 times
"Let's start beating ass and die" - drunk TA4Life

"Just because you have a d*** doesn't mean you need to be one...pussy" -Blackdeath

SCOUTING SAVES LIVES
http://imgur.com/YGk0W0o

How to play Sup Com by Ubilaz
http://goo.gl/je83z
User avatar
Aulex
Contributor
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: 17 Nov 2012, 05:29
Has liked: 299 times
Been liked: 225 times
FAF User Name: VoR_Aulex

Re: Balance

Postby KD7BCH » 28 Nov 2015, 10:58

Rudolph'sRedNose wrote:Considering people mostly play Gap of Rohan the game should really be balanced around it. Which leads nicely into my next point. Anti nuke range should be heavily nerfed, it easily covers two bases which is clearly ridiculous. Half the range, cover one base, make nukes more viable.


LOL good luck with that argument...
The Gun Down
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPmuSnJiV0o
KD7BCH
Priest
 
Posts: 424
Joined: 25 Feb 2015, 18:06
Has liked: 29 times
Been liked: 12 times
FAF User Name: KD7BCH

Previous

Return to Balance Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest