My thoughts on the new patch.

[KeyBlue]

drewEvil
Okay my fault, you did some analysis and there are some facts.
I did read it, i even posted a response somewhere :p.

But that post reads like a rant post and half of the things you say aren't based on facts (=proved to be true)
Which unfortunatly completely devalues it for me.
Which is why in my mind I thought there was no analysis or facts, because those are things of value.

One could say I fooled myself.

[Evildrew]

biass if you read the post in my thread (by Evildrew » 30 Aug 2016, 22:16 CET) you will see that I do give a valid argument why the dps buff argument is BS because you are not comparing like for like, at T1 bomber that costs 50% more and does 50% more dps are not the same. In fact, if you pay 50% more mass to get 50% more dps, then is the DPS/mass higher? No.

I explain that in order for the total damage delt in the time span from starting to build the 2 bombers (pre patch & post patch) you need 4 passes to get even on damage delt without considering that you have had to spent 50% more mass. The probability is very slim, even taking a really bad player you will certainly have less than 10% chance of completing 4 passes without it being gg. Therefore the T1 bomber is not buffed but the opposite.

You are making the simple mistake of looking at 1 aspect/measure to conclude instead of the whole picture.

[Destructor]

Holly goood... Someone with more than 1500 pts talking about ACUs nerfs. GREAT.
It's because, according bias, if u have less than 1500 poits, u can't suggest improvements.

Since new patch i've watching some replays.

TurnOvers at now are extremely rare, because ACU, "MAIN UNIT OF THE GAME TO ME" can't be a figther anymore, if your enemy dies, u don't have time and no more ressources to make T2, GUN, and shield or nano, or use his OC to make great diferences at a constant war on the middle.

Games now are focused on fast t1 to kill your enemy, jump fast to t2 to make t2 bomber or mercies, and even with much time, your enemy will be with LOW HP...
VETERANCY ACU is unless, no advantage to take some risks, and they make some firebases, boring MML to kill them, and u wait to save mass to T3.

GAME DEPHT over...
It's better to focus on defense, ACU that was the best thing to move little foward to kill any strategic unit like couple PDT2 or Tatical defenses, are completly nerfed.

Soo, the game are stacked on T1, and after a little equilibrium forces on the middle, the war over and start the race for t3.

[biass]

he's talking about the bombers mate, not acus

[Zock]

Hi, sorry for the delayed response but i was incredible busy, flying back to germany and having a million things to do. And i wanted to take some time for it to give your post a proper response that i think it deserves.

I believe most of what i could say about the bombers here are already explained in the introduction to the patchnotes, and the text to the bombers itself. So i'll move on directly to the t2 changes, where is much more to say and apparently a lot of need to discuss in general.

So making ACUs easier to be sniped is a good thing now?

A difficult question indeed, but, if you ask like that, yes. Important to note is that the goal is rather to make it easier to attack an ACU with convential means, but that will inevitable also lead to ACUs being easier to snipe too. However both are forms of aggressive play, which teamgames currently lack of, and this changes attempt to improve. It's a double edged sword since ACUs are also used to attack itself (as pointed out here in length by you), and making them easier to snipe will reduce this too, but..

..people who dislike the change seem to focus so much on how much harder it gets to attack with ACUs, that they forget that it'll also become easier to attack ACUs with this change.

The power of ACUs in teamgames is a problem, as there are usually not many places you can use to get an advantage without running into an ACU defending it. If attacking this ACUs is too risky or unworthwhile, we will end up with a game where attacking is too often not a good alternative to defending and ecoing. As ACUs are used both for attacking and defending, strong ACUs can never be the solution, as the defender ACU always has the base as additional advantage (and avoids the risk of being sniped).

Weaker ACUs however, indirectly make it easier to attack with units, which is the main tool of the attacker. This change won't magically solve this problem, but it is a first step into the direction, even when it comes with its downsides too. There aren't too many possibilities outside of this, though some future changes will build on this: UEF Nano (and possible sera nano/regen) changes, the upcoming t3 changes (making the t2 phase longer, giving you more time to build up an army that can break a firebase before they'd all die to t3), potential buffs to MMLs and more.

But the main point is that the t2 upgrade is, while also being often used to attack, even more used to defend, and therefore nerfing it will hurt the defender more. The removal of regen will make it more possible (even though still not very often, as said - its only a step, not a solution) to launch a second attack on an ACU after the first one failed, while in the current balance, this is almost impossible, as by the time you could rebuild an army, the enemy will be on full HP again.

It is true that making agressive ACUs easier to snipe is not good, but there isn't really any way to make it easier to attack ACUs without accepting this. All we can do is try to compensate attacking ACUs in other ways, which is easier than nerfing defending ACUs in other ways.

Another note here is the fact how integral the T2 ACU is for any form of strategy, how people can't imagine playing without it and claim ACUs will be useless if its nerfed, and more in this direction, is a problem for the game itself. It is the very definition of OP, independent if it's used for attacking or defending, no upgrade should be absolutely necessary. This is partwise because it is not only really good, but also an upgrade that gives you everything at once - ability to build, HP, and regen on top, there are no real drawbacks.

But the goal is to provide more aggressive play, even when many people assume it will achieve the opposite. This is where more beta testing could've helped a lot, but i can promise that if the change does the opposite (which there are good arguments for too), it will be reverted or altered. Seeing how many people have very strong opinions about it, even before they tried it, and play according to this opinion, it'll probably take a while before we can see how this change really impacts the game.

But tl:dr, ACUs are the reason teamgames are very turtlish, so nerfing ACUs is, even when it has many downsides, ultimately a good thing (for teamgames, for 1v1 its a complete different story and the reason there are big limits in how we can improve teamgames in this area).


About Scathis i believe it is perfectly possible to have a somewhat forwarded antinuke in your base still covering your scathis. That you can't make it in the very back of your base is a downside, but thats good in my opinion. Having to build a second one just for the scathis would be too much indeed though.

Aeon sensor was pretty much never used, you also look at it only from a teamgame perspective, not 1v1. And a couple of t1 scouts compared to a Monkeylord are, indeed, cheap, which might explain why the upgrade saw very little use. We'll see though.

With the increased cost I wonder if it will be possible to get T2 in maps like Theta Passage, especially when fighting auroras, which their main counters are found in the other races T2 units (also t1 bombers nerf + maa buff, aurora OP?). Thats for ladder.

From my experience playing the beta: Its definitely possible, even though harder. It is planned to nerf aeon maa a bit to compensate for their indirect advantage they got from the t2 and bomber changes for a start, and if needed, they will be more compensations.

I am all in for reducing the amount of t1 engies in the game (for lag and pathfinding issues mainly), but, "too easy base defending with the ability to spam the required defence in no time." is a very big downside, which makes this change not worth it. And again, it favors defenders over attackers. I suggest making a new engineer unit, "T2/T3 support engineer"

The fear turned out to be not true so far, so there is a good chance it won't turn out true now either. Else it will be adjusted. There are still downsides to higher tech engies. And i am strictly against new units until absolutely necessary.

6)This patch not addressing the actual balance problems
-RAS being stupidly OP (this also goes for the sacus RAS spam).
-T3 air OPness. A nerf for this should consist on a small nerf to ASF stats and a RAS nerf, delaying the T3 air stage.
-Land balance bertween T2 and T3. T3 stage very easy to reach leaving T2 units useless. And of course the loyalist nerf (I would increased their mass cost to 640).
(I have heard rumors about Zock intending the change the balance between T3 and T4 units I am completely against that. I think its in the perfect spot right now, at least for teamgames)
-Seraphim being a very map dependable faction, very powerful in some maps, useless in others. Seraphim needs a T3 land buff, and the T4 bot is currently crap against any microed force (UEF Shield Gun ACU vs T4 Bot is a win for the UEF without losing all its shield, even with range advantage to the T4). I also think they should have the best t2 gunship.

Indeed, it isn't. Yet, many people complain that it is already too much change at once, so it is a compromise between solving some problems, but not too many. RAS was planned to be changed this patch, but was split off into the second part after feedback on it. It will be changed though.
There will be changes to t3 air at some point too. Just, as said, we can't do everything at once for many reasons.
Believing rumours can quickly make you upset about things that are not true - after the second part of this patch, we'll continue to work on the patch that we worked on for most of the last year - the patch that nerfs t3 compared to t2. It will take a while until its done though, as it'll also increase EXP buildtime (but not make exp weaker compared to t3 in general).
-Seraphim t4chicken will be buffed in part 2 of the patch (if we can make it work, there are many technical limitations with what i'd like to do)

So while it's unfortunate that we can't fix everything at once, you can look forward to the future.

Hope this helped, and i am aware the t2 changes are difficult to see as part of a bigger picture rather than isolated by itself, but please try giving it a chance, just as i'll give it a chance to revert/change/reduce them (good chance it would've happened now if this post were done in the beta, possibly with a few replays proving it's points - now we have to wait until the next patch for any potential change).

[SpoCk0nd0pe]

The power of ACUs in teamgames is a problem, as there are usually not many places you can use to get an advantage without running into an ACU defending it. If attacking this ACUs is too risky or unworthwhile, we will end up with a game where attacking is too often not a good alternative to defending and ecoing. As ACUs are used both for attacking and defending, strong ACUs can never be the solution, as the defender ACU always has the base as additional advantage (and avoids the risk of being sniped).

[...]

But the main point is that the t2 upgrade is, while also being often used to attack, even more used to defend, and therefore nerfing it will hurt the defender more. The removal of regen will make it more possible (even though still not very often, as said - its only a step, not a solution) to launch a second attack on an ACU after the first one failed, while in the current balance, this is almost impossible, as by the time you could rebuild an army, the enemy will be on full HP again.

It is true that making agressive ACUs easier to snipe is not good, but there isn't really any way to make it easier to attack ACUs without accepting this. All we can do is try to compensate attacking ACUs in other ways, which is easier than nerfing defending ACUs in other ways.

There is another variable you could change, it is an even bigger hornet's nest then nerfing ACU T2 though: Reclaim values

It seems to me that reclaim values are slightly too high, punishing attacks with only partial success a little too much.

[Destructor]

Thx for your explanations ZOCK...

I think almost everyone likes to play teamgames than 1x1, rigth??... Soo we need to think not with just majority, but with justice.
I've been watching replays and playing some teamgames, now everyone just made and huge attacks with t1, if was not sucessfull, they stop battle by many minutes, and wait t3, XP, to start battle again or came to artys. It's a fact!!

Sooo, let's try to make an brainstorm with this question.
Same amouts of everything, HP and T1 regen, T2, T3, and HP Pool, with little diferences.

1º - Less reclaim rate of ACUs... Less than t1... Sooo, if your enemy don't have some "support" with engs and units, he cant reclaim "spoils of battle soo fast", he will need more units than ACU on that place.

2º - Overcharge with less recharge time, maybe 2-3s, but with a high cost.
T1... 7000 DAMAGE... Cost 6000E
T2... 10000 DAMAGE... Cost 12000E
T3... 16000 DAMAGE... Cost 22000E

2.2... While is recharging, we can consider that he uses some ammount of energy too.
It's avoid that "advantage" to use him just for defenses.
For example, 12000 Cost, -1000 (-3s) while recharges for another overcharge.

3º - Veterancys will give same ammount of HP Pool and regen rate, but not FREE HP (1500 HP instantly), your HP Pool jump +10%, but u must fill them with your new regen rate. If u don't understand, my english is poor, and i will try again!!
U start with 12000.... Than upgrade t2, u goes for example to 15000, but u must to fill these "3000" with your regen rate.
If u made some veterancy stars before u goes t2, congratulations, your HP will fill fast, it's your reward to take high risks on battles.

4º - More veterancy Stars... It's your "REWARD" to be an agressive player all game.
5th - 120 units.
6th - 160 units.
7th (RED STAR) - 210 units and give u +~15% range to gun, same distance to hit T3 units.

5º - Build rate to old values. ACU must be an special unit. Good on figth if u are using him like a figther
Good at defenses if u are need too.

6º - AEON (BEST BUILD RATE AT T2 and T3) Considering he dont have GUN and T2 at same time, don't have mobile stealth, and his shields are soo smal and not have upgrade.
CYBRAN (Low than aeons, but little better BR than uef and seraph), Don't have Gun and T2 at same time too, but have stealth.
UEF and SERAPHIN are TANK Factions... Usual BR at T2 or T3.

Thx for your time.

[Zock]

There is another variable you could change, it is an even bigger hornet's nest then nerfing ACU T2 though: Reclaim values

Absolutely! However that would be a quite massive change impacting many things beside that particular case, and the patch, even when it grew more and more due to the server change and other thing, was supposed to not contain any bigger change spare the bomber. If i knew it would take so long from the beginning, we might have very well looked more into reclaim too, and might do that again in the future (after the t3 patch), even though changing reclaim values need to be done with a lot of care, if at all!

Changing reclaim time on the other hand, is a little bit less controversial..and is something i'd like to investigate further and test at some point. For now, we have enough changes at once though.

[Apofenas]

Spoiler: show

The power of ACUs in teamgames is a problem, as there are usually not many places you can use to get an advantage without running into an ACU defending it. If attacking this ACUs is too risky or unworthwhile, we will end up with a game where attacking is too often not a good alternative to defending and ecoing. As ACUs are used both for attacking and defending, strong ACUs can never be the solution, as the defender ACU always has the base as additional advantage (and avoids the risk of being sniped).

Weaker ACUs however, indirectly make it easier to attack with units, which is the main tool of the attacker. This change won't magically solve this problem, but it is a first step into the direction, even when it comes with its downsides too. There aren't too many possibilities outside of this, though some future changes will build on this: UEF Nano (and possible sera nano/regen) changes, the upcoming t3 changes (making the t2 phase longer, giving you more time to build up an army that can break a firebase before they'd all die to t3), potential buffs to MMLs and more.

But the main point is that the t2 upgrade is, while also being often used to attack, even more used to defend, and therefore nerfing it will hurt the defender more. The removal of regen will make it more possible (even though still not very often, as said - its only a step, not a solution) to launch a second attack on an ACU after the first one failed, while in the current balance, this is almost impossible, as by the time you could rebuild an army, the enemy will be on full HP again.

It is true that making agressive ACUs easier to snipe is not good, but there isn't really any way to make it easier to attack ACUs without accepting this. All we can do is try to compensate attacking ACUs in other ways, which is easier than nerfing defending ACUs in other ways.

Another note here is the fact how integral the T2 ACU is for any form of strategy, how people can't imagine playing without it and claim ACUs will be useless if its nerfed, and more in this direction, is a problem for the game itself. It is the very definition of OP, independent if it's used for attacking or defending, no upgrade should be absolutely necessary. This is partwise because it is not only really good, but also an upgrade that gives you everything at once - ability to build, HP, and regen on top, there are no real drawbacks.

But the goal is to provide more aggressive play, even when many people assume it will achieve the opposite. This is where more beta testing could've helped a lot, but i can promise that if the change does the opposite (which there are good arguments for too), it will be reverted or altered. Seeing how many people have very strong opinions about it, even before they tried it, and play according to this opinion, it'll probably take a while before we can see how this change really impacts the game.

But tl:dr, ACUs are the reason teamgames are very turtlish, so nerfing ACUs is, even when it has many downsides, ultimately a good thing (for teamgames, for 1v1 its a complete different story and the reason there are big limits in how we can improve teamgames in this area).

While making ACU weaker in defence you also make ACU weaker in offence. If the gun ACU that lost half HP in failed attack, it won't be able to use his gun without risk of being sniped. At the same time t2 ACU that lost half health at defending will rebuild PDs from scratch, lock therritory get reclaim and get shield just in case.

Getting t2 for a gun and restarting attack with stronger ACU was an option. Now it isn't. You just sit at base and slowly regen health untill t3 land/air appear so even full HP ACU with personal shield becomes an unneseccary risk.

The reason team games are so turtlish is not ACU strenght, it's ACU weakness combined with strenght of t2 pds and snipe tools.

Even if you accomplished your goal making team games "less turtle" (and i hardly doubt that) you removed fundamental mechanic of regenerating HP which is necessary not only at 6 minute, but also at 40+ minute of team game. With that you also created huge faction imbalance where some faction have million times better hp/regen upgrades than others.

T2 is "main upgrade for any form of strategy" NOT because it is OP, but because there are no real alternatives. Watch Equilibrium. There is a reason why Chrono dampener provides same regen as t2 upgrade. This way aeon double gun ACU doesn't waste time regenerating from "red" HP. Cybran gun is better alternative to t2 and UEF nano is "buffed", not "changed" as some say about your balance patch (althought not enough IMO). I do believe if Ithilis changed sera 2d gun to cheap upgrade that only adds +50 damage - you would see early game battle commander with boosted DPS from 2d gun; boosted HP and regen from restoration field(+1500 HP; +15 hp/sec).

[SpoCk0nd0pe]

Weaker ACUs however, indirectly make it easier to attack with units, which is the main tool of the attacker.

Thinking further about this, there is yet another (controversial) way to do this:
Make units unable to directly heal your opponent's units, i.e. change HP at level up to HP/maxHP_lastLVL*maxHP_newLVL

Or in less mathematical terms: keep the health percentage at level up.