Forged Alliance Forever Forged Alliance Forever Forums 2012-02-28T12:41:39+02:00 /feed.php?f=11&t=697 2012-02-28T12:41:39+02:00 2012-02-28T12:41:39+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=697&p=7525#p7525 <![CDATA[Re: The patch FA needs]]> too much, less range nerf would do the job too

T1 bomber veterancy (all factions) = 6-12-18-24-30
i agree with that vet nerf for the bombers
also i think that the bomber cost should go back to 3599 cost, really, think about that. Why was the bomber buffed? because it was a shit unit that never drop bombs, but now that you can make it to drop million times? why dont we give it the cost as before?

jester veterancy = 6-12-18-24-30
no way, for something that cybran has that can be cool for sometime of the game... jesters become useless in not early game, let them something cool.

T2 gunships HPs reduced by -10%
Why dont we let the gunships the cost of 3599?

Suggested

T1 bomber's personal radar costs 10E/s when activated.
Dunno about it

T1 sera selen turrent yaw from +-30° to +-45°
Dont think its really important

T1 sera arty HPs decreased from 170 to 140
Also dont really important, i think

Statistics: Posted by Isen — 28 Feb 2012, 12:41


]]>
2012-02-28T09:56:33+02:00 2012-02-28T09:56:33+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=697&p=7522#p7522 <![CDATA[Re: The patch FA needs]]>
MonkeyFun wrote:
Wouldn't a mercy with .1 range be able to fly right through shields and easily snipe them as well as anything under them?


Massive respect gain right there, sir. That's most likely the case! (presuming no or distracted AA)


Also, count me in for that group that is tired of arguing on forums about the same things. I don't like most of these changes, however t1 bombers do need to be looked at. I can't micro for shit and I get a lot out of bomber first, especially as seraphim, and even more so on maps with a hydrocarbon near spawn.


I like this guy already.

Statistics: Posted by thygrrr — 28 Feb 2012, 09:56


]]>
2012-02-27T20:09:36+02:00 2012-02-27T20:09:36+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=697&p=7465#p7465 <![CDATA[Re: The patch FA needs]]>
Also, count me in for that group that is tired of arguing on forums about the same things. I don't like most of these changes, however t1 bombers do need to be looked at. I can't micro for shit and I get a lot out of bomber first, especially as seraphim, and even more so on maps with a hydrocarbon near spawn.

Statistics: Posted by MonkeyFun — 27 Feb 2012, 20:09


]]>
2012-02-27T19:03:23+02:00 2012-02-27T19:03:23+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=697&p=7459#p7459 <![CDATA[Re: The patch FA needs]]>

The problem is, the definition of "perfect" varies from person to person. Everyone has their own unique take on the current balance. Even at the very top end, with the current best players - Voodoo, Lu_Xun, ROCK, etc - they all disagree on a lot of things. Some like bombers, some hate them, some think Aeon are terrible, some think they're fine, so on and so forth on almost every point of contention in the game.

That seems to imply that the balance is actually pretty good. It will be a physical impossibility to balance the game in such a way as no one ever complains about anything, because, again, everyone has their own unique opinion of how the game should be played and how it should be balanced. Since there's such a wide variety of different interpretations on these subjects, bombers being a perfect example of this, it implies that the balance is already very good. If every single person was saying "bombers are terrible!" then it would be cause for alarm - look at prior examples for reference, such as 3599 restorers.

What the above means is that trying to rashly force through balance changes merely for the sake of having a change to point to is a very, very bad idea, as it will be primarily fueled by opinion and not cold, hard, data. When there is such a widely varying opinion on a change, such as with bombers, you are necessarily choosing to hold one group's opinion in higher esteem than another. The moment that the game starts being decided by opinion, no matter how well formed said opinion is or how well respected the originator of said opinion is, we start an irrecoverable slide into balance being determined by arbitrary popularity contests and a select few's personal opinions rather than by genuine need or with empirically provable results.

To summarize, no change should always be favored over a change, unless and until there are absolutely iron clad reasons for it backed up by irrefutable evidence. This has not been the case with bombers, nor any other proposed balance change contained in these forums - hence, no change has been made.

Continuing to complain about it in chat and forums won't change that - be sure to reread the big red text at the top of every page in this subforum. :)

Statistics: Posted by uberge3k — 27 Feb 2012, 19:03


]]>
2012-02-27T18:32:50+02:00 2012-02-27T18:32:50+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=697&p=7453#p7453 <![CDATA[Re: The patch FA needs]]>
When this game is perfect, then don't change it... till then lets look at the options.

Statistics: Posted by ToejamS — 27 Feb 2012, 18:32


]]>
2012-02-27T18:30:27+02:00 2012-02-27T18:30:27+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=697&p=7452#p7452 <![CDATA[Re: The patch FA needs]]>

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 27 Feb 2012, 18:30


]]>
2012-02-27T18:21:29+02:00 2012-02-27T18:21:29+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=697&p=7450#p7450 <![CDATA[Re: The patch FA needs]]>
uberge3k wrote:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/churning.asp


Ah, yes, this is relevant because I get paid by the balance change.

Statistics: Posted by FunkOff — 27 Feb 2012, 18:21


]]>
2012-02-27T17:45:14+02:00 2012-02-27T17:45:14+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=697&p=7441#p7441 <![CDATA[Re: The patch FA needs]]>
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/churning.asp

Statistics: Posted by uberge3k — 27 Feb 2012, 17:45


]]>
2012-02-27T17:24:10+02:00 2012-02-27T17:24:10+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=697&p=7435#p7435 <![CDATA[Re: The patch FA needs]]>
pip wrote:
I would love to see something like Zock's ideas to enhance faction diversity and improve game balance faction-taylored style.


Well... It certainly isn't a bad idea and beats doing nothing.... just not my preferred choice, but I do like it. :-)

Statistics: Posted by FunkOff — 27 Feb 2012, 17:24


]]>
2012-02-27T09:52:31+02:00 2012-02-27T09:52:31+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=697&p=7424#p7424 <![CDATA[Re: The patch FA needs]]> Statistics: Posted by pip — 27 Feb 2012, 09:52


]]>
2012-02-27T00:32:52+02:00 2012-02-27T00:32:52+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=697&p=7414#p7414 <![CDATA[Re: The patch FA needs]]> BTW if you find your posts gone missing, they may have been gobbled by the hungry off topic thread eating monster. This thread is to discuss lu xuns ideas for the game. Its not a forum to start arguments over the same stuff that's been debated to death already.

Statistics: Posted by ToejamS — 27 Feb 2012, 00:32


]]>
2012-02-26T23:25:59+02:00 2012-02-26T23:25:59+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=697&p=7413#p7413 <![CDATA[Re: The patch FA needs]]>
thygrrr wrote:
Zock wrote:buffing t1 AA instead should be considered aswell. That would also be a little nerf to interceptors flying over your base with nearly no harm.

but i'm still for different changes to bombers for each faction.


More splash radius for Cybran, more DoT for UEF, more stun for Aeon, more dmg for Seraphim...?


No, the idea (idea! it can be variated) was something like the following:

Aeon: Much more expensive, more hp, more dmg. No first bomber option, but a strong mid game bomber. No radar for this one. This fits also well because Aeon got no t2 bomber, and this will be a t1,5 bomber.
UEF: More HP, less demage. (maybe triple/half) This will nerf the first bomber, but UEF needs and gets a viable bomber on water maps.
Cybran: more demage, less hp, can stun, but the radar moves to the scout. I think a little buff to cybran is welcome. Else increase the build time too.
Sera: The sera bomber will stay the same, they can't raid with labs, so they will be able to raid with a first bomber. But that bomber shouldn't be able to double drop.

But i don't think this is going to happen..people tend to have some kind of dislike to faction deversity.

Statistics: Posted by Zock — 26 Feb 2012, 23:25


]]>
2012-02-26T22:04:17+02:00 2012-02-26T22:04:17+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=697&p=7410#p7410 <![CDATA[Re: The patch FA needs]]> Statistics: Posted by Pavese — 26 Feb 2012, 22:04


]]>
2012-02-26T19:34:34+02:00 2012-02-26T19:34:34+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=697&p=7397#p7397 <![CDATA[Re: The patch FA needs]]>
thygrrr wrote:
I think the real issue is that you can micro a bomber in a way that multiplies and concentrates its firepower. I think you guys should compare non-multidrop first bombers to multidrop first bombers. The latter are orders of magnitude stronger, where a single drop first bomber might even be UNDERpowered.

If you multidrop, it will simply allow the AA to kill the bomber faster. It also takes a *lot* of micro to do well, as you cannot be doing anything else in your base while micro'ing it - and this is during the critical phase of the game, where idle engineers will really hurt your long term production.

thygrrr wrote:
You can't do that with a striker. You can't do that with a lab. You can't even do that with your ACU.

Maybe not with a Striker, but most certainly with an Aurora. You can easily double a LAB's effectiveness with micro, and you can micro your ACU with OC to vastly increase its effectiveness.

Statistics: Posted by uberge3k — 26 Feb 2012, 19:34


]]>
2012-02-26T18:06:08+02:00 2012-02-26T18:06:08+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=697&p=7389#p7389 <![CDATA[Re: The patch FA needs]]>
thygrrr wrote:
Zock wrote:buffing t1 AA instead should be considered aswell. That would also be a little nerf to interceptors flying over your base with nearly no harm.

but i'm still for different changes to bombers for each faction.


More splash radius for Cybran, more DoT for UEF, more stun for Aeon, more dmg for Seraphim...?


You got this mixed up, Cybran would have stuf, Aeon DoT, UEF more damage, and seraphim would have more splash

Statistics: Posted by FunkOff — 26 Feb 2012, 18:06


]]>