Reasonable T3 Change Feedback

Moderators: Zock, JaggedAppliance

Reasonable T3 Change Feedback

Postby FtXCommando » 26 Oct 2017, 03:59

Image

No really, why was sniper bot given +1100 hp for 80 extra mass while keeping damage, range, speed, etc the same?

Am I expected to counter them with t2 arty creep? They were already annoying as balls to deal with in current balance and now percy/brick are getting hp decreased by 25% while snipers gets 350% increase? What the f***.

Also I'm not really sure why bricks seem to be equal/slightly stronger than percivals now. They get extra hp, extra speed, extra dps for same cost. Granted, the percival has the advantage of alpha damage and that does give it the advantage in some situations. However, the percival was supposed to be a class above even the brick due to the lack of a direct fire experimental from the UEF. The Cybran have what is effectively a percival while having the cheap ML as well as the monster mega.

I'm kind of disappointed in the decision to make the siege tank just a harb 2.0. I figured phim was in a unique place in the t3 game because their t3 relied heavily on creating an "optimal mix." Rather than going the easy way of making the siege tank into another harb, I would have hoped that the balance would have focused on creating a tool to allow the siege tank to push into range of other t3 units. This would have focused on making their t3 mobile shield cost less constant e (-100? -150?) so that they had the hp to get in and use their major dps. Hell, it would finally give the absolver some purpose in a game other than being a meme weapon.

Also I thought people were against making the titan a carbon copy of the loyalist? Did everyone decide to change their mind about that or something?

From what I gathered in this balance patch, the t3 stage goes roughly like this now:

Titan = Loyalist < Harb = Siege Tank < Percy = Brick

No idea where to put snipers because they kind of seem totally fucked right now.
Morax wrote:Questioning what I am doing is like you are trolling me.

Titantula wrote:Im not closed minded, so long as you agree with me 100%.

PhilipJFry wrote:We don't moderate people who voice their opinion about stuff.
We do moderate...stuff we don't want to see in general.
User avatar
FtXCommando
Priest
 
Posts: 350
Joined: 09 Jan 2017, 18:44
Has liked: 50 times
Been liked: 110 times
FAF User Name: FtXCommando

Re: Reasonable T3 Change Feedback

Postby EvanGalea » 26 Oct 2017, 05:53

Also while we're at it, who had the bright idea to remove loyalists stunning ACU/EXP? Loyalists are supposed to snipe ACU/T4 with their EMP burst.
User avatar
EvanGalea
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 27 Feb 2016, 18:51
Has liked: 33 times
Been liked: 34 times
FAF User Name: EvanGalea

Re: Reasonable T3 Change Feedback

Postby Exotic_Retard » 26 Oct 2017, 10:19

balance terrorists peeking around the corner ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
I made the terrible mistake of voting for Tokyto_
User avatar
Exotic_Retard
Moderator
 
Posts: 1262
Joined: 21 Mar 2013, 22:51
Has liked: 510 times
Been liked: 535 times
FAF User Name: Exotic_Retard

Re: Reasonable T3 Change Feedback

Postby Blackheart » 26 Oct 2017, 12:21

Easy answer: BHedit.
User avatar
Blackheart
Priest
 
Posts: 355
Joined: 04 Jul 2012, 13:26
Has liked: 275 times
Been liked: 278 times
FAF User Name: various

Re: Reasonable T3 Change Feedback

Postby FtXCommando » 26 Oct 2017, 12:34

Exotic_Retard wrote:balance terrorists peeking around the corner ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)


Is not getting your shitposts deleted one of the privileges of being a moderator?
Morax wrote:Questioning what I am doing is like you are trolling me.

Titantula wrote:Im not closed minded, so long as you agree with me 100%.

PhilipJFry wrote:We don't moderate people who voice their opinion about stuff.
We do moderate...stuff we don't want to see in general.
User avatar
FtXCommando
Priest
 
Posts: 350
Joined: 09 Jan 2017, 18:44
Has liked: 50 times
Been liked: 110 times
FAF User Name: FtXCommando

Re: Reasonable T3 Change Feedback

Postby Yakmann » 26 Oct 2017, 12:39

Where can we view these changes? It's not in the current beta.
Yakmann
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 50
Joined: 15 Sep 2016, 10:01
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 13 times
FAF User Name: Yakmann

Re: Reasonable T3 Change Feedback

Postby PsychoBoB » 26 Oct 2017, 13:11

Blackheart wrote:Easy answer: BHedit.

Did you do a T3 land rework in BHedit?
If you fear the dark you have never seen what light can cause!
PsychoBoB
Priest
 
Posts: 333
Joined: 12 Sep 2011, 09:25
Has liked: 132 times
Been liked: 17 times
FAF User Name: McNeil

Re: Reasonable T3 Change Feedback

Postby Petricpwnz » 26 Oct 2017, 15:02

FtXCommando wrote:Image

No really, why was sniper bot given +1100 hp for 80 extra mass while keeping damage, range, speed, etc the same?

Am I expected to counter them with t2 arty creep? They were already annoying as balls to deal with in current balance and now percy/brick are getting hp decreased by 25% while snipers gets 350% increase? What the f***.


Image

I haven't even looked in the direction of snipers yet. Calm your tits.

FtXCommando wrote:Also I'm not really sure why bricks seem to be equal/slightly stronger than percivals now. They get extra hp, extra speed, extra dps for same cost. Granted, the percival has the advantage of alpha damage and that does give it the advantage in some situations. However, the percival was supposed to be a class above even the brick due to the lack of a direct fire experimental from the UEF. The Cybran have what is effectively a percival while having the cheap ML as well as the monster mega.

Disregarding titan brick is by far the worst t3 unit in current faf and also is far from the best in current alpha, and yes percival is still a lot better than brick, and no it's not "supposed" to be that way. DonT HaVE DIreCT fiRe T4 LanD doesn't directly correlate to percies having a necessity to be the braindead strongest t3 unit (which it still is).

FtXCommando wrote:I'm kind of disappointed in the decision to make the siege tank just a harb 2.0. I figured phim was in a unique place in the t3 game because their t3 relied heavily on creating an "optimal mix." Rather than going the easy way of making the siege tank into another harb, I would have hoped that the balance would have focused on creating a tool to allow the siege tank to push into range of other t3 units. This would have focused on making their t3 mobile shield cost less constant e (-100? -150?) so that they had the hp to get in and use their major dps. Hell, it would finally give the absolver some purpose in a game other than being a meme weapon.


Actually at the moment it's exactly the opposite, harb is pulled closer to how siege tank is and im considering options of moving it back without hindering the balance. You people want dynamic balance where some units can't win vs others unless have good unit mix but then we do that and we will get a billion balance forum threads saying how othuums suck. I'm a big fan of dynamic balance where all units are totally different and in different situations can come as completely OP or UP but faf game design and cancerous pathfinding simply don't allow for much variance. You are however free to suggest something exact.
F.I. in current faf othuum completely crushes close range but sucks total ass vs any kiting, but everyone just complains about the unit being shit even tho it's much more balanced than they think.

FtXCommando wrote: Also I thought people were against making the titan a carbon copy of the loyalist? Did everyone decide to change their mind about that or something?

Who are "people" exactly? xD Well surely not me.
FtXCommando wrote:From what I gathered in this balance patch, the t3 stage goes roughly like this now:

Titan = Loyalist < Harb = Siege Tank < Percy = Brick

No idea where to put snipers because they kind of seem totally fucked right now.

Not exactly, I will make a full vid explaining new roles and dynamic of each t3 unit once the patch is more refined and at least in beta preferably close to release. And yes snipers are fucked cause they weren't touched yet.

The patch direction isn't mine but I will carry it to be finished without massive cancer imbalances even if it means shifting the "feel" of some units slightly, if you want to have some unit role different you are free to suggest but please consider the effect the changes you propose will have on all other matchups and how it can (and probably will) ruin the balance.
Blackheart wrote:actually i love lolis and want petry to be my waifu


Scientifically proving that Blackheart is a weeb - https://imgur.com/a/J436c | https://clips.twitch.tv/AssiduousAverageOxMikeHogu

Best meme of 2017 - https://puu.sh/yLsvH/abbf54eb99.mp4
User avatar
Petricpwnz
Priest
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 30 Aug 2012, 01:48
Has liked: 317 times
Been liked: 359 times
FAF User Name: Whiteheart

Re: Reasonable T3 Change Feedback

Postby Farmsletje » 26 Oct 2017, 18:01

Give spearheads heatseaking missiles please *___*
FtXCommando wrote:
need to give him some time to blossom into an aids flower
Farmsletje
Evaluator
 
Posts: 586
Joined: 14 Sep 2016, 18:38
Has liked: 162 times
Been liked: 249 times
FAF User Name: Farmsletje

Re: Reasonable T3 Change Feedback

Postby IceDreamer » 26 Oct 2017, 19:23

If anything in the OP is correct and official, my faith in the balance team just went down into a whole 'nother hole. I mean... You don't have to be even literate to tell they're all terrible ideas. The sort that shouldn't have been entertained even for an alpha.

I also have not seen any of this go through GitHub. Frankly I'm fed up to the hilt with Balance progression being the only part of FAF still effectively hidden from the community. Will have a word with Jagged.

As an example of some constructive feedback, here, let me put a nail in some appalling reasoning.

F.I. in current faf othuum completely crushes close range but sucks total ass vs any kiting, but everyone just complains about the unit being shit even tho it's much more balanced than they think.


And so it seems the answer decided on was to change that idea, as the complaints over Othuum were taken to mean the idea of a unit weak to kiting but kickass up close is bad. That's poor logic. The Othuum isn't bad because "Strong up close but weak to kiting" is a bad plan, it's weak because the implementation of the plan was poor. Othuum doesn't have the tools or ability to get into close range, barring an enemy mistake. Additionally, it's not that much stronger if it does.

A less controversial, more profitable, likely easier to accept and balance method to move forward would be to ask "What does Othuum need to make the original plan function?". The answer could be any of more speed, higher DPS, more variable weapon ranges between primary and secondary, unique weapon coding (Lightning tank for example), speed boost ability...
IceDreamer
Councillor - Game
 
Posts: 2535
Joined: 27 Dec 2011, 07:01
Has liked: 123 times
Been liked: 422 times

Next

Return to Balance Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Farmsletje, speed2 and 3 guests