Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Playing around with engineer balance

2013-05-04T23:06:33+02:00

Ze_PilOt wrote:
Mize wrote: like it the old way?

What is the old way ?
With restorer spam ? Falling trees having more mass ?

Seriously, try the mod : If you don't want to play differently, it won't. You can use engy to assist exactly the way it was.

Falling trees having more mass ? because mother nature started to erode it and bugs/whatever are dissolving it and that's why it gives more mass. also who would spend time knocking down all the trees instead of reclaiming them right away for instant resource boost. how much difference that would be seriously

yes try the mod it changes lots of things but its still the same game even if u play "engymod way"

Statistics: Posted by qai — 04 May 2013, 23:06

Re: Playing around with engineer balance

2013-04-06T12:11:35+02:00

Mize wrote:
like it the old way?

What is the old way ?
With restorer spam ? Falling trees having more mass ?

Seriously, try the mod : If you don't want to play differently, it won't. You can use engy to assist exactly the way it was.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 06 Apr 2013, 12:11

Re: Playing around with engineer balance

2013-04-06T09:22:30+02:00

Rienzilla wrote:
I can see how a local assitance nerf could accomplish what we want with engymod, but it would need a more than sixfold increase of t3 unit buildtime. We have considered this, but dismissed it on the grounds that it will slow down the game considerably: more resources need to be spent on build power instead of combat units.

There is no doubt that doing the above would slow down the game if you did nothing else but that. But why stop? You start by doing the above exercise, and then you apply a global decrease in buildtimes, until you feel speed is comparable to the old situation again.

Statistics: Posted by Wakke — 06 Apr 2013, 09:22

Re: Playing around with engineer balance

2013-04-06T08:37:56+02:00

Why are we changing all these things? To make the game easier for new people? I just don't get this. I have read all of the balance change posts for this balance change and short of Icken and 3 more i don't know anyone's name and the other 3 don't play Seton's. I think many players especially the more dedicated players for years liked the game the way it was. All these changes just don't make sense or make me happy. if it's a matter of lag, well we have taken care of that by not letting lagger's play in Seton's. And don't say change is for good. Maybe after working all day long i want to come home a veg out on a game i like and finally get good at. I like to play my Seton's map and have fun. Many of the same people i play with all the time and i chat with each other on skype during the game and socialize. Does that make sense. Is it possible to have a (Seton's mod) like Pantom mod for those of us that like it the old way? Why not? I know others are thinking this but maybe are afraid to say it. JOIN ME REBEL

Or is it possible for for me to by this lobby and Server from who ever owns it and have the game changed my way?

MIZE

Don't be a Seton's Hater

Statistics: Posted by Mize — 06 Apr 2013, 08:37

Re: Playing around with engineer balance

2013-04-04T11:58:50+02:00

Veta wrote:
the only way to approach balancing locality is through local assistance nerf (e.g. TML,SML,TMD,SMD), which is obviously a radical game change not suited for a simple patch. indeed i wonder why nobody asks for the BP/build times on TML/SML to be shortened and tested, as this would be more consistent.

That I can answer. Back in the days (I think in vanilla, I'm not sure when it was changed) the bp and build times of the missile launchers was much much much lower. This was deemed OP, especially for SML/SMD, because big games quickly turn into a missile-assisting contest. As a result, bp/bp was increased by probably an order of magnitude to make assisting them next to useless.

I can see how a local assitance nerf could accomplish what we want with engymod, but it would need a more than sixfold increase of t3 unit buildtime. We have considered this, but dismissed it on the grounds that it will slow down the game considerably: more resources need to be spent on build power instead of combat units. I think it will have a more profound effect on gameplay than the activators (or, as they are implemented since yesterday, the hq-factories).
--
Rien

Statistics: Posted by Rienzilla — 04 Apr 2013, 11:58

Re: Playing around with engineer balance

2013-03-04T19:13:03+02:00

Rienzilla wrote:
Veta wrote:just a thought but this activator/upgrade discussion had me thinking, has unlocking schematics for ALL your production been discussed at all?

This would essentially be the tech tree in supcom2. Units that magically get extra options when you build something somewhere is not really into the supcom spirit. Same for hard limit on assisting, or different build power when doing different things.

i agree, global tech for FA feels out of place and i assume thats what the chief complaint has been with the engie mod (the gameplay is great). what did you think of my PM suggestion equating the mass/energy cost of activators to factory buildtime and other minor tweaks? if you and zock have already considered or tried this approach (i definitely think its worth a few tests) let me know and if you guys are interested i can probably make a mockup for 1 faction fairly quickly.

also, the more thought i give it the more glaring the realization is that other than the engie/military factory system (which is similar in principle to activators) described here:
http://forums.gaspowered.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=61617

the only way to approach balancing locality is through local assistance nerf (e.g. TML,SML,TMD,SMD), which is obviously a radical game change not suited for a simple patch. indeed i wonder why nobody asks for the BP/build times on TML/SML to be shortened and tested, as this would be more consistent.

Statistics: Posted by Veta — 04 Mar 2013, 19:13

Re: Playing around with engineer balance

2013-03-04T12:41:55+02:00

Veta wrote:
just a thought but this activator/upgrade discussion had me thinking, has unlocking schematics for ALL your production been discussed at all?

This would essentially be the tech tree in supcom2. Units that magically get extra options when you build something somewhere is not really into the supcom spirit. Same for hard limit on assisting, or different build power when doing different things.

Statistics: Posted by Rienzilla — 04 Mar 2013, 12:41

Re: Playing around with engineer balance

2013-03-03T15:15:06+02:00

Raghar wrote:
I looked at numbers and I wonder why don't you increase mass required for
T1 eng to 125 increase build time a bit.
T2 eng to 250
T3 eng can stay at 490

Considering T1 eng would be more expensive, it can encourage interesting starting strategies. 400 - 250 for factory - 125 for eng = 50 + seconds required to build that stuff, mass available for all other things.
In addition considering greater cost of T1 eng, early bombing would be lethal, and an expansion would be much more risky.

Another quite efficient way how to reduce 300 T1 eng problem is capping number of units at 300 + 100 per defeated ACU on the same side.The unit limit would force players to keep number of unnecessary units at minimal level. (It can create problems by discouraging additional bases.) But this solution is certainly helpful for certain types of multiplayer games.

This would completely change everything. This mod aims to preserve the existing balance.

Statistics: Posted by Zavior — 03 Mar 2013, 15:15

Re: Playing around with engineer balance

2013-03-02T03:48:23+02:00

I looked at numbers and I wonder why don't you increase mass required for
T1 eng to 125 increase build time a bit.
T2 eng to 250
T3 eng can stay at 490

Considering T1 eng would be more expensive, it can encourage interesting starting strategies. 400 - 250 for factory - 125 for eng = 50 + seconds required to build that stuff, mass available for all other things.
In addition considering greater cost of T1 eng, early bombing would be lethal, and an expansion would be much more risky.

Another quite efficient way how to reduce 300 T1 eng problem is capping number of units at 300 + 100 per defeated ACU on the same side.The unit limit would force players to keep number of unnecessary units at minimal level. (It can create problems by discouraging additional bases.) But this solution is certainly helpful for certain types of multiplayer games.

Statistics: Posted by Raghar — 02 Mar 2013, 03:48

Re: Playing around with engineer balance

2013-03-01T03:50:11+02:00

just a thought but this activator/upgrade discussion had me thinking, has unlocking schematics for ALL your production been discussed at all? What I mean is, say you unlocked T2 schematics for all engineers and factories when you built an activator or researched T2 on your ACU -- this would basically accomplish what you guys have in mind. The only different between T1 and T2 engineers/factories then would be build power and build power efficiency, efficiency should probably go up with tech. Instead of starting a building with a T2 engie and leaving your T1 engies to finish the job, T1 engies could do it themselves. Instead of upgrading your factories to unlock units - all your T1 factories would already have T2 units. Upgrading factories and T2 engies would still be worth it in that they would provide more and/or more efficient build power. That seems like the logical progression of this IMO.

The only requirement for this to work would be some balancing on the cost of upgrading your ACU or the Activator's cost (which has been done in this mod already). I think it would go a long way to feeling more intuitive though as the other "clean" option would be nerfing factory assist hard in addition to normalizing engie Mass/BP and Factory Mass/BP and making factories reasonably cheap as done in this mod. As far as keeping the current gameplay with all its pros and cons I'd say the activator building or a research upgrade is the simplest solution and that's what this mod is doing.

Statistics: Posted by Veta — 01 Mar 2013, 03:50

Re: Playing around with engineer balance

2013-02-26T15:12:11+02:00

Your maze wasnt very hard. Do you have anymore?

Statistics: Posted by Anaryl — 26 Feb 2013, 15:12

Re: Playing around with engineer balance

2013-02-26T15:10:09+02:00

Statistics: Posted by Lu_Xun_17 — 26 Feb 2013, 15:10

Re: Playing around with engineer balance

2013-02-26T15:09:10+02:00

It seems half the people in this thread are asking for an eco system like vanilla, and the other for one like SupCom2.

Statistics: Posted by Anaryl — 26 Feb 2013, 15:09

Re: Playing around with engineer balance

2013-02-26T13:20:01+02:00

I can understand that. On maps like setons, where you need a lot engies to reclaim, you will of course still make and use them to assist later.

Also for the early t2, and long buildtime t3 ships you usually want this ships as fast as possible, and will use engies.

Later, multiple t2 (lets say, arround 10+) and even a few t3 factories could be appealing for navy players, though. Maybe they didn't realize that yet, and they don't have to.

For air, the benefits of multiple factories over engineers are very small, because air don't have rolloff time. The only benefits here time and hp, but on setons, you got more then enough time to micro all your engies and you rarly are in the need to protect your buildpower.

For middle position, the mod will change a lot. I think people will either go with multiple factories, or assisting t2 engies.

Statistics: Posted by Zock — 26 Feb 2013, 13:20

Re: Playing around with engineer balance

2013-02-26T11:49:47+02:00

I know (and they are), I'm just reporting feedback. They have the tech building requirement, but not the same benefits as other players, that's all. So they tend to be more resistant to the mod.

Statistics: Posted by Kof — 26 Feb 2013, 11:49