Balance patch 3696 Feedback Thread

[Mielus]

I really appreciate the time people are spending on this balance patch, but I feel the coming balance patch 3696 is so big it makes it complicated to see all it's effects.

Not goin to happen.

To which point you refer, the agile approach or other points?

1: The game is quite complicated
2: A team of 2-3 people testing this stuff takes forever.
3: If the community was more engaged in testing balance beyond sandbox we could maybe do this...

In my opinion: you name 3 more reasons here why a agile approach could help.

However, try hosting a "fafbalance" mod team game and get a motivated crowd, then suggest this.

I can imagine a lot of people are not motivated and the main reason being is that the game is hard as it is, learning a another balance and giving good feedback is even harder.
My time to play this game is limited, and spending a lot of time trying out a "not final balance" and providing feedback is not my idea of fun, I am sorry but that is how I feel.
I do think the balance can be improved, and as I said I appreciate the time people spend on it, but I see the tendency to try and fix it in one go, while serveral smaller steps:

• require less testing, because they are less complicated, so
• they can get released faster, and
• provide more feedback automaticly because everyone is playing
• are less likely to deter people because the changes are small and gradual

This can help the balance team spending less time on the balance changes.

[Lieutenant Lich]

The main complaint with beta is not so much the balance, it's the slow download speeds. Even someone with a decent internet might take up to 5-10 min to load everything. Obviously, if there a network issue on the user's end FAF can't fix it but the file hosting might need work.

Similarly, coop forces the download of ALL files when it would be easier to download JUST what's needed.

[Oeterama68]

The main complaint with beta is not so much the balance, it's the slow download speeds. Even someone with a decent internet might take up to 5-10 min to load everything. Obviously, if there a network issue on the user's end FAF can't fix it but the file hosting might need work.

Similarly, coop forces the download of ALL files when it would be easier to download JUST what's needed.

What? Pretty sure if you have decent internet it only takes a few seconds, at least it does for me.

[Farmsletje]

Is it possible to implement the non t3 rebalance changes? It feels like it's being delayed because the t3 rebalance isn't ready yet, even though there are a lot of good fixes/changes in there.

[Farmsletje]

bump?

[Endranii]

Tactical shit post to make it look like there is conversation going on.

[Cyborg16]

IMO Mielus is right: this would be easier to test and give feedback on as several smaller patches.

A lot of the changes sound good, but like many I'm not sure about the big T3 land DPS reduction (this also makes T3 less powerful vs static defence and T4), the huge changes to T4 build time, and OC.

ACU changes (excluding OC) sound mostly good, but reducing the HP bonus from UEF nano from 16.7% to 12.5% seems wrong. Is this just to keep it below the Sera HP boost?

T3 land:
Harb has 15% DPS reduction
Othuum DPS: 400 → 287 and range 32 → 28 — really?? This makes Othuums only slightly better than Ilshavohs for HP/cost and damage/cost, and less DPS than harbs while remaining slower
Percy: big HP reduction with slightly more speed sounds good (to me); the huge DPS decrease (400 → 334) is probably too much
Loyalist: still not sure how I feel about the changes to stun

Experimentals: increasing build time theoretically makes some sense (and encourages building more T3 instead), but as Mielus says there are other mass sinks. Making such drastic changes in one go doesn't seem like a good idea, especially since the beta only gets limited testing, so I'd suggest not changing by more than around 50% for now (but keep in mind for the next patch, following feedback from this one).
Fatboy shield recharge time reduction: this scares me!
GC claws: fire rate is now 1/0.15 per claw? Sounds reasonable vs big T3 (maybe) but not vs T1. Can the recharge speed depend on mass of the unit "clawed"?

T3 arty: making ranges more uniform given the similar costs makes sense. The faction diversity here isn't really relevant; all play the same role (that could be changed e.g. by reducing range, DPS and cost significantly for some factions, but would probably not play well).

Overcharge: oh, you reverted the changes vs buildings? Damage vs buildings and vs commanders is unchanged from the previous system. Good; then no issues vs PD. It is a weird monstrosity that can 1-shot a Percy but takes 2-3 shots to kill PD, but the balance seems to work now (one could also try allowing the new damage model vs static PD and AA, but not sure how it would play out).
Oh, and I think it was Foden who joked last night that you need a Maths PhD to understand the new OC. We should see how it plays out; otherwise a simpler system with three damage levels using 1/2/3 E-storage could also be an option.

[FtXCommando]

These systems are too intertwined for a small patch. You only change T3 units and ACUs become op as shit, for example. For something as significant as a T3 rebalance, the entire system of late game combat needs to be changed in order to maintain some level of balance.

[Blodir]

At least exp buildtime should be gradual or a lot of players will be very upset by not being able to instantly spend their mass (especially in gap and the like)

[FtXCommando]

At least exp buildtime should be gradual or a lot of players will be very upset by not being able to instantly spend their mass (especially in gap and the like)

I'm not even sure if there's been a faf beta game that reached experimental stage so I have zero idea how that will be changing gameplay. Mega taking 2/3 the buildtime of a mavor might not be much of a big deal on maps where you spam 3 trillion engies for reclaim, but dunno if it makes t4 totally unviable on say a map like funeral plains.