Rhino/Obsidian buff? Also OC tweak

Moderator: JaggedAppliance

Re: Rhino/Obsidian buff? Also OC tweak

Postby ZLO_RD » 12 Nov 2019, 09:10

Steel_Panther wrote:
ZLO_RD wrote:OC is annoying cause it drains more than 5k power or something like that so you tend to stall power and lose radar


Wouldn't that be solved by just having a single extra energy storage?

And yes, to be clear for everyone, I do think it is mostly an overcharge being OP in team games issue, not that rhinos or obsidians are bad vs other units. That's why my suggestion was to nerf OC, or else possibly rework them so they are better in team games where OC matters a lot more, but not worse in ladder where they are apparently still balanced.


so i am fighting and waiting until i get to 5000 power so i can overcharge. as soon as i get 5000 i trow an overcharge and it consumes more than 5000 power every time. Then problem is that you are allowed to overcharge without having enought power. Or it is overcharge draining more than intended
http://www.youtube.com/user/dimatularus
http://www.twitch.tv/zlo_rd
TA4Life: "At the very least we are not slaves to the UI"
User avatar
ZLO_RD
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 2177
Joined: 27 Oct 2011, 13:57
Location: Russia, Tula
Has liked: 290 times
Been liked: 368 times
FAF User Name: ZLO

Re: Rhino/Obsidian buff? Also OC tweak

Postby Steel_Panther » 12 Nov 2019, 22:57

keyser wrote:issue is that teamgames are often crowded (wonder, canis...) and that bad map design lead to issues. As we don't balance the game toward map like gap/thermo/astro where arty are the most effective weapons, i wouldn't balance the game toward classic teamgame maps (the one i listed for example). Nerfing oc on this maps would inevitably nerf it on ladder and on teamgame maps that are less crowded. As i think we should design the game toward more dynamics maps since they use the full diversity of tactics/strategy and requires the most skills.


I think a part of it might be: bad game engine design using only a single core, leads to bad map design purely to avoid unplayable lag...leading to issues. This is why there are very few 20x20km team game maps consistently played. I dont really expect people to design large maps for many players unless everyone is playing with a 9700k, so I'm not sure how to solve that problem.
Steel_Panther
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 79
Joined: 13 Jul 2017, 01:20
Has liked: 38 times
Been liked: 13 times
FAF User Name: Steel_Panther

Re: Rhino/Obsidian buff? Also OC tweak

Postby FtXCommando » 12 Nov 2019, 22:58

If performance was an issue dual gap wouldnt be the 2nd-3rd most played map at all times. The map is practically designed to make it as nobrain as possible to get to min 40+ games.
Are you upset? Are you happy? Are you a FAF Player? Come to the PC Discord and share your thoughts and build the community!

https://discord.gg/Y2dGU8X
User avatar
FtXCommando
Councillor - Players
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 09 Jan 2017, 18:44
Has liked: 184 times
Been liked: 466 times
FAF User Name: FtXCommando

Re: Rhino/Obsidian buff? Also OC tweak

Postby keyser » 12 Nov 2019, 23:04

Steel_Panther wrote:
keyser wrote:issue is that teamgames are often crowded (wonder, canis...) and that bad map design lead to issues. As we don't balance the game toward map like gap/thermo/astro where arty are the most effective weapons, i wouldn't balance the game toward classic teamgame maps (the one i listed for example). Nerfing oc on this maps would inevitably nerf it on ladder and on teamgame maps that are less crowded. As i think we should design the game toward more dynamics maps since they use the full diversity of tactics/strategy and requires the most skills.


I think a part of it might be: bad game engine design using only a single core, leads to bad map design purely to avoid unplayable lag...leading to issues. This is why there are very few 20x20km team game maps consistently played. I dont really expect people to design large maps for many players unless everyone is playing with a 9700k, so I'm not sure how to solve that problem.


people are just lazy. In the end that's why we get so much 6v6+ games being played. You could play 10x10 with 4v4, and it would make already games revolving less around ACU/OC and eco.
Zockyzock:
VoR is the clan of upcoming top players now
keyser
Councillor - Game
 
Posts: 1730
Joined: 17 May 2013, 14:27
Has liked: 405 times
Been liked: 493 times
FAF User Name: keyser

Re: Rhino/Obsidian buff? Also OC tweak

Postby Anihilnine » 13 Nov 2019, 10:22

FAF is beautiful as a 1v1 game. Fighting over the map, raiding, avoiding the ACUs.

All that goes away on team games because each expansion has an ACU guarding it.

Instead of tweaking overcharge, make t2 relevant by playing on maps that have expansions that arent full of ACUs. No obvious maps come to mind.
Anihilnine
Moderator
 
Posts: 2309
Joined: 16 Apr 2013, 10:10
Has liked: 274 times
Been liked: 409 times
FAF User Name: Anihilnine

Re: Rhino/Obsidian buff? Also OC tweak

Postby armacham01 » 13 Nov 2019, 16:46

Instead of tweaking overcharge, make t2 relevant by playing on maps that have expansions that arent full of ACUs. No obvious maps come to mind.


This is more a problem of how people host games, than the map design. For example, on Phenom Spartiate, you could host it as a 5v5, or you could host it as a 2v2. That's true for a lot of maps. I've watched a number of 2v2s hosted by Nexus on maps that are "traditionally" played as 4v4, 5v5, etc. and they're usually interesting games.

Certain maps mash all of the starting locations together, like Canis 5v5 or Hilly Plateau (or Astro Craters), so even if you run them as a 2v2 you get the same problem.

I think the real problem is that people don't like playing 2v2s because you end up overly reliant on a single teammate. That works when everybody is 1700+, but at lower ratings, it leads to a lot of sadness. 2v2s work on "Fields of Isis" because the chokepoints make it easier to survive to the late game.

Perhaps someone could make a 20x20 land map (or slightly larger, but a full 40x40 map is probably too big) intended for 4v4 gameplay, where there are not only 4 starting locations per team (spread out in the map), but also 4-12 additional expansions, which are not so close to the starting locations (or so close to each other) that it just turns into ACU spam. It would have to be sparse in terms of mexes, or players would move too quickly past the T2 land phase (because it would be too easy to move up to T3 land). And air would be a major factor in every game, so the T2 land (while important) might be overshadowed by air fights and the rush to T3 air.
armacham01
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 126
Joined: 09 Feb 2019, 09:01
Has liked: 19 times
Been liked: 56 times
FAF User Name: II__4rma473__II

Re: Rhino/Obsidian buff? Also OC tweak

Postby Ithilis_Quo » 13 Nov 2019, 19:56

When you play bigger as small map that is not full of water in team game, then you are forced to deal with horrible air balance. While the game will be only about air and generally boring.
"Fixed in Equilibrium" Washy
User avatar
Ithilis_Quo
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1347
Joined: 29 Dec 2012, 15:55
Location: Slovakia
Has liked: 381 times
Been liked: 173 times
FAF User Name: Ithilis

Re: Rhino/Obsidian buff? Also OC tweak

Postby Steel_Panther » 14 Nov 2019, 01:25

FtXCommando wrote:If performance was an issue dual gap wouldnt be the 2nd-3rd most played map at all times. The map is practically designed to make it as nobrain as possible to get to min 40+ games.


I would partially agree that dual gap is surprisingly popular considering how laggy it inevitably gets. But isn't it technically 10x20 or 15x20, since it is rectangular? Even considering that it's not 20x20, a lot of games are still hosted with max cpu ratings of 200-250. So I don't think there are any very commonly played, full 20x20 maps besides setons, much less anything larger than that. Occasionally you'll see Selkie Isle or Point of Reach, but that's about it, and those are quite rare.

I agree with Keyser that many people are lazy and like to chill on dual gap because they can have 6 apm and not feel like it was their fault the team lost in a 6v6. But I still think the main reason 20x20 (or larger) maps are rarely played as team games is because of lag. Why else would the non-lazy players still play 10x10 team games almost exclusively? Is it just that everyone that plays FAF is always lazy? A lot of people avoid dual gap because of the lag, and the play style, but will refuse to play other 20x20 maps because of the lag.

Given how many people vocally hate the play style of dual gap, why are those people not playing 20km or 40km maps, if it's not about lag? Is it just that everyone loves using a rambo acu?
Steel_Panther
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 79
Joined: 13 Jul 2017, 01:20
Has liked: 38 times
Been liked: 13 times
FAF User Name: Steel_Panther

Re: Rhino/Obsidian buff? Also OC tweak

Postby Farmsletje » 14 Nov 2019, 02:55

Steel_Panther wrote:I would partially agree that dual gap is surprisingly popular considering how laggy it inevitably gets. But isn't it technically 10x20 or 15x20, since it is rectangular? Even considering that it's not 20x20, a lot of games are still hosted with max cpu ratings of 200-250. So I don't think there are any very commonly played, full 20x20 maps besides setons, much less anything larger than that. Occasionally you'll see Selkie Isle or Point of Reach, but that's about it, and those are quite rare.

Map design is almost as big of a contributor to slower simspeed as map size is. Point of reach almost never goes below +0 whilest it is 2x bigger than dual gap, and maps like normal gap always tend to go quicker into the minus as well. So it "technically" being 10x20 doesn't mean that it should be faster. If anything it should be slower than the average 20km map
FtXCommando wrote:
need to give him some time to blossom into an aids flower
Farmsletje
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1015
Joined: 14 Sep 2016, 18:38
Has liked: 342 times
Been liked: 416 times
FAF User Name: Farmsletje

Re: Rhino/Obsidian buff? Also OC tweak

Postby Steel_Panther » 14 Nov 2019, 03:57

Farmsletje wrote:Map design is almost as big of a contributor to slower simspeed as map size is. Point of reach almost never goes below +0 whilest it is 2x bigger than dual gap, and maps like normal gap always tend to go quicker into the minus as well. So it "technically" being 10x20 doesn't mean that it should be faster. If anything it should be slower than the average 20km map


Well certainly it is about the number of units on the map, which generally increases as map size increases, but I would say that of course a 10km 8v8 could get a lot laggier than a 20km 2v2 because there could just be way more units in total. But then, is it just that people don't like the larger maps (for reasons other than lag)? I'm not sure why we see wonder open 6v6 so much more often than any 3v3 or 4v4 20km map (except perhaps setons).

I also can agree with the comments that air becomes more powerful on larger maps. Also, it makes t1 land a little bit less important because it is a bit easier to tech up, for one thing just because the travel distances are longer. That implies there is a somewhat different balance on small vs large maps. I'm not saying that means anything needs to be changed, though.
Steel_Panther
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 79
Joined: 13 Jul 2017, 01:20
Has liked: 38 times
Been liked: 13 times
FAF User Name: Steel_Panther

PreviousNext

Return to Balance Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest