Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Were FAF imo went wrong

2019-02-26T16:03:56+02:00

5cript wrote:
These are understandable fixes. I was thinking of rock/paper/scissors mechanics added by armor, like in CnC, AoE2, ...

considering the performance of some units i have to wonder if it wouldn´t be better ..
also unlike the above mentioned you realy have only vehicles so how much RPS would there realy be?

i also have to question some peoples view on RPS because what it shall provide is to not just spam units in a braindead manner and just go hurr durrr tankrush but use the unitpool available carefully
doesn´t have to be full on hard rps like with starcraft 2´s way of armor and attackstats ...

giving supcombots their own armordesignation doesn´t make sense for 2 reasons:
1. being their drastic healthdifferences between tiers
2. there are so few of them and they are not consistently available through all factions ..

how many bots do phim have? a t1 assasin and a t2 assault, 3 if you count their t3 mobile artillery ... and that is it ..
uef have 4
cybran have 6 with the multilegged vehicles
and aeon have also just 2

Statistics: Posted by MrTBSC — 26 Feb 2019, 16:03

Re: Were FAF imo went wrong

2019-02-26T15:34:34+02:00

Farmsletje wrote:
If only all those epic eq fixes were in the main balance

Don't worry. There is whole team guarding us and making sure they end up broken when they make it in.

Statistics: Posted by Apofenas — 26 Feb 2019, 15:34

Re: Were FAF imo went wrong

2019-02-26T15:32:11+02:00

If only all those epic eq fixes were in the main balance :(

Statistics: Posted by Farmsletje — 26 Feb 2019, 15:32

Re: Were FAF imo went wrong

2019-02-26T15:28:55+02:00

ZLO_RD wrote:
Apofenas wrote:
5cript wrote:Armor types in Supreme Commander...

armor types always existed and were always used to make OC deal different damage to different units, and probably to make shield disruptor work.
FAF balance team used armor types to nerf imba things and for some technical tricks.
from what i know armor types are used on ASF vs CZAR beam situation, before introduction of extra armor types czar could destroy many asf in one pass under czar's beam and czar used to get insane vet for that so after an attackmove or right click type of ASF attack, CZAR could end with more HP than he started with.

Fire beetles were not very usable cause they would blow each other up so you could not properly attack with many of them.
don't remember any more uses of armor types right now

These are understandable fixes. I was thinking of rock/paper/scissors mechanics added by armor, like in CnC, AoE2, ...

Statistics: Posted by 5cript — 26 Feb 2019, 15:28

Re: Were FAF imo went wrong

2019-02-26T15:20:14+02:00

I asked you twice what justifies a special treatment for attacking a specific unit.
You fail to answer.

The usual "the more you have to micro the better cuz much smart" attitude. Must be fun for new players.
Suggestion: make it impossible to attack move on Czar. Should fix it, ya? /irony

Have a nice day.

Statistics: Posted by --- — 26 Feb 2019, 15:20

Re: Were FAF imo went wrong

2019-02-26T15:21:59+02:00

Video material shows that attack order results in 122 ASF dead to beam and using micro results in 0 ASFs dead to beam.

0 ASF is not "countless". So let's rephrase: those 122 ASFs is a tax for being dumb. You may pay it, or use your head and hands a little.

And in case you didn't notice. Even if such beam was a problem, It is possible to prevent it from killing ASFs at first pass without armor types. EQ uses DoTDamage so mobile fast objects recieve... same 33% DPS from beam.

Statistics: Posted by Apofenas — 26 Feb 2019, 15:18

Re: Were FAF imo went wrong

2019-02-26T15:02:12+02:00

He lost 122 ASF when clicking attack move on Czar. I call that countless, yes.
Again, please explain why a basic game mechanic should be discarded for one unit while applying for every other unit?

Statistics: Posted by --- — 26 Feb 2019, 15:02

Re: Were FAF imo went wrong

2019-02-26T14:25:50+02:00

Blackster wrote:
Spoiler: show
Apofenas wrote:For example the CZAR and ASFs. It was introduced because CZAR could vet up on ASF that fly into beam and insta heal from vet like crazy. Can it do so with new veterancy? Nope. With old system ASFs were counted as t3 unit and CZAR would go to 5 vet pretty easily, with new system ASF is just 350m unit and CZAR would barelly hit a single vet before it dies.

You exclusively talk about vet - and ignore the fact that countless ASFs could be vaporized in one or a few passes, even if the Czar dies in the end. How is this reasonable?

Apofenas wrote:
The whole thing about flying into beam is bullshit. Lazy ass who used attack order onto CZAR during ground fire deserved to lose all of his ASFs. However the player who microed would just fly around CZAR and lose none to beam. Even if you consider it as a problem, there were ways to solve it without armor types.

This is the type of micro that would reward you or punish you. Removed.

Attack order on a unit - a basic game mechanic for EVERY OTHER UNIT - equals a deserved potential loss of hundreds of units?
I disagree.

Tutorial from 2013. Countless you say? Sheppard lost only 10 to CZAR AA and NONE to beam. Only took him some more actions to micro instead of dumb click on CZAR.
object

Statistics: Posted by Apofenas — 26 Feb 2019, 14:25

Re: Were FAF imo went wrong

2019-02-26T13:58:51+02:00

Apofenas wrote:
For example the CZAR and ASFs. It was introduced because CZAR could vet up on ASF that fly into beam and insta heal from vet like crazy. Can it do so with new veterancy? Nope. With old system ASFs were counted as t3 unit and CZAR would go to 5 vet pretty easily, with new system ASF is just 350m unit and CZAR would barelly hit a single vet before it dies.

You exclusively talk about vet - and ignore the fact that countless ASFs could be vaporized in one or a few passes, even if the Czar dies in the end. How is this reasonable?

Apofenas wrote:
The whole thing about flying into beam is bullshit. Lazy ass who used attack order onto CZAR during ground fire deserved to lose all of his ASFs. However the player who microed would just fly around CZAR and lose none to beam. Even if you consider it as a problem, there were ways to solve it without armor types.

This is the type of micro that would reward you or punish you. Removed.

Attack order on a unit - a basic game mechanic for EVERY OTHER UNIT - equals a deserved potential loss of hundreds of units?
I disagree.

Statistics: Posted by --- — 26 Feb 2019, 13:58

Re: Were FAF imo went wrong

2019-02-26T13:31:39+02:00

ZLO_RD wrote:
armor types always existed and were always used to make OC deal different damage to different units, and probably to make shield disruptor work.
FAF balance team used armor types to nerf imba things and for some technical tricks.
from what i know armor types are used on ASF vs CZAR beam situation, before introduction of extra armor types czar could destroy many asf in one pass under czar's beam and czar used to get insane vet for that so after an attackmove or right click type of ASF attack, CZAR could end with more HP than he started with.

Fire beetles were not very usable cause they would blow each other up so you could not properly attack with many of them.
don't remember any more uses of armor types right now

Yes yes, I know that. That is typical duct tape approach. But if you suddenly remove some of these armor types that were introduced years ago, you may notice that the reason behind this change might already disappear.

For example the CZAR and ASFs. It was introduced because CZAR could vet up on ASF that fly into beam and insta heal from vet like crazy. Can it do so with new veterancy? Nope. With old system ASFs were counted as t3 unit and CZAR would go to 5 vet pretty easily, with new system ASF is just 350m unit and CZAR would barelly hit a single vet before it dies.

The whole thing about flying into beam is bullshit. Lazy ass who used attack order onto CZAR during ground fire deserved to lose all of his ASFs. However the player who microed would just fly around CZAR and lose none to beam. Even if you consider it as a problem, there were ways to solve it without armor types.

This is the type of micro that would reward you or punish you. Removed.

ACU death damage doing no damage to buildings? Hmmm if somebody wants to suicide in enemy's base, his base would die too, unlike old times when you could just give it to ally. At least you have a feel that your base issued a nuke explosion instead of seing 400/500 HP energy storages...

The overcharge. Well it was introduced so it wouldn't insta kill ACUs, buildings and shields with 12k damage per shot. So we had an OC nerf not so long ago. That change could be implemented while removing armor type from ACU and balancing OC damage based on how much damage is acceptable for an ACU and in result also nerf OC against t2/t3 units.

Was such option considered? I doubt. OC damage to value doesn't even scale depending on power.

I'm not saying that ACU OC and death damage penalties were bad changes. There were solid reasons behind them. But you do it once, you'll do it all the time. I remember when we discussed CZAR & ASF change. Many people justified it because they thought it was fine since "we already have armor types, just look at OC and ACU death explosion". Ithilis did literally the same thing without adding any damage multipliers.

Statistics: Posted by Apofenas — 26 Feb 2019, 13:31

Re: Were FAF imo went wrong

2019-02-26T12:16:16+02:00

Apofenas wrote:
5cript wrote:Armor types in Supreme Commander...

There are 1000 reasons why it does not fit into SupCom and why its not needed in the first place.
Just thinking someone would WANT that makes me nauseous.

Yes this doesn't belong to SupCom. Except balance team already introduced armour types for some units...

armor types always existed and were always used to make OC deal different damage to different units, and probably to make shield disruptor work.
FAF balance team used armor types to nerf imba things and for some technical tricks.
from what i know armor types are used on ASF vs CZAR beam situation, before introduction of extra armor types czar could destroy many asf in one pass under czar's beam and czar used to get insane vet for that so after an attackmove or right click type of ASF attack, CZAR could end with more HP than he started with.

Fire beetles were not very usable cause they would blow each other up so you could not properly attack with many of them.
don't remember any more uses of armor types right now

Statistics: Posted by ZLO_RD — 26 Feb 2019, 12:16

Re: Were FAF imo went wrong

2019-02-26T12:02:26+02:00

5cript wrote:
Armor types in Supreme Commander...

There are 1000 reasons why it does not fit into SupCom and why its not needed in the first place.
Just thinking someone would WANT that makes me nauseous.

Yes this doesn't belong to SupCom. Except balance team already introduced armour types for some units...

Statistics: Posted by Apofenas — 26 Feb 2019, 12:02

Re: Were FAF imo went wrong

2019-02-26T11:34:55+02:00

Armor types in Supreme Commander...

There are 1000 reasons why it does not fit into SupCom and why its not needed in the first place.
Just thinking someone would WANT that makes me nauseous.

Statistics: Posted by 5cript — 26 Feb 2019, 11:34

Re: Were FAF imo went wrong

2019-02-26T08:15:23+02:00

Also on the shield idea, while it sounds great as a concept for a mod, is just never going to work for FAF.

When it comes to player retention the bigger issue, by a VAST degree, is the skillgap that needs to be crossed to be remotely competent at this game.

What you are proposing to be implemented into base FAF will
1) drive away old guard players because it is not only an EXTREME change but it basically introduces a whole new “economic” aspect to constantly keep track of which is going to be incredibly annoying.

2) Further degrades the player retention factor as no one CARES that labs are useless after min 4 because they can’t go 5 minutes without mass stalling. Now you have added this new shield mechanic that will only see relevance at say the 1200+ level and even then it might take a while for the information to settle and for that level to adopt the new meta. New players will just see another thing to keep track of, will likely pointlessly focus on it, see focusing on it lead to no improvement, and quit out of frustration. There’s no need to throw what is effectively a blue eco bar of actively keeping track of projectile types at people.

So that leads to the perfect storm of a decreasing level of high quality players and a failure to actually replace the new players with new talent as the new update increases a skill gap to the point it effectively created a black hole in the general client.

As a mod? Sure. Maybe it can even get featured if it ends up maintaining a stable balance and some minor ideas get adopted from it. This as a whole package? Definitely not a good option.

Statistics: Posted by FtXCommando — 26 Feb 2019, 08:15

Re: Were FAF imo went wrong

2019-02-26T01:58:54+02:00

Doesn’t take much critical thinking to see the road a publicly elected balance councillor goes. It really is pretty simple. Either you’re being actively disingenuous or you’re lowkey proving why this is a bad idea.

Statistics: Posted by FtXCommando — 26 Feb 2019, 01:58