Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Suggestion for change to repair

2014-01-15T06:27:54+02:00

I don't think anyone is saying it has to make it into the patch that's about to be released. But I think we all agree that:

- repair is fairly useless as is and never used
- some sort of change to repair to make it useful in certain circumstances is good
- Apof's e-inefficient but m-efficient idea seems like one we can try.

So how do we go about trying this out and if it works well, getting it implemented in the future?

Statistics: Posted by whootle — 15 Jan 2014, 06:27

Re: Suggestion for change to repair

2014-01-15T04:21:51+02:00

I am not sure what to think of this idea but I do think we are a long way away from something like this. Currently we have enough to test with all the balance changes and the upcoming patch's.

Continuing to introduce too many variables simply slows down current testing I think. Our efforts are better focused on testing in my opinion.

Merci,

Chevalier

Statistics: Posted by Cheva — 15 Jan 2014, 04:21

Re: Suggestion for change to repair

2014-01-15T00:04:46+02:00

rxnnxs wrote:
nice idea indeed. energy is not lying around on the battlefield.

It also allows for nice adjustments in economy mistakes, if u make too many pgens u can still use it for units by repairing them

Statistics: Posted by Aulex — 15 Jan 2014, 00:04

Re: Suggestion for change to repair

2014-01-14T23:15:53+02:00

nice idea indeed. energy is not lying around on the battlefield.

Statistics: Posted by rxnnxs — 14 Jan 2014, 23:15

Re: Suggestion for change to repair

2014-01-14T17:47:59+02:00

I'm also for the 'less mass but higher E' cost idea for repair.

Statistics: Posted by Szakalot — 14 Jan 2014, 17:47

Re: Suggestion for change to repair

2014-01-14T17:39:25+02:00

As far as the idea about increasing the energy cost of repairing (which I like) another thing to consider would be this: People have talked about effective repair being potentially unbalancing because it would be possible to tank damage on units that are being constantly repaired. While I've never really understood this theory (can't you just shoot the engineers instead?), if the energy costs are very high, it would be more difficult to execute this tactic because you are more likely to energy stall and lose shield coverage during the engagement.

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 14 Jan 2014, 17:39

Re: Suggestion for change to repair

2014-01-12T03:09:42+02:00

Apofenas wrote:
I think this is interesting but complicated idea. I would just reduce a repair mass cost for example to 30%, but increace energy cost to for example 300%. So if player hasn't much mass but has energy, it would be efficient for him to repare. But if player hasn't much energy it would be more effective to just reclaim unit and build a new one. This idea will make a repair efficient enought but not in all ways, so that will add a new mechanic to a game without crippling old one. Sure tests are needed to balance "Repairing old unit" and "reclaiming & building new unit" because my numbers aren't balanced.

I'm in favor of this

Statistics: Posted by Aulex — 12 Jan 2014, 03:09

Re: Suggestion for change to repair

2014-01-12T00:32:46+02:00

That's an interesting idea Apof. You're right it would add another option (in a different way) and still not largely affect the current reclaim + rebuild option for mass recovery.

So currently we have the following ideas for repair:

1. Discount mass cost, discount scales based on hp of unit.
- essentially makes repairs more worth it for broader range of hp%
2. Change hp repair rate, scaled based on hp of unit.
- changes game dynamic, making tanking viable (but expensive) strategy
3. Discount mass cost, but increase e cost.
- changes game dynamic, makes repair m efficient but e inefficient.

Statistics: Posted by whootle — 12 Jan 2014, 00:32

Re: Suggestion for change to repair

2014-01-10T06:34:50+02:00

I think this is interesting but complicated idea. I would just reduce a repair mass cost for example to 30%, but increace energy cost to for example 300%. So if player hasn't much mass but has energy, it would be efficient for him to repare. But if player hasn't much energy it would be more effective to just reclaim unit and build a new one. This idea will make a repair efficient enought but not in all ways, so that will add a new mechanic to a game without crippling old one. Sure tests are needed to balance "Repairing old unit" and "reclaiming & building new unit" because my numbers aren't balanced.

Statistics: Posted by Apofenas — 10 Jan 2014, 06:34

Re: Suggestion for change to repair

2014-01-10T05:13:57+02:00

I think of primary importance here is what do you want to do with repair. In making my suggestion, I definitely did NOT want to drastically change the game mechanics, but wanted to make repair viable in more situations than it is currently. My suggestions were aimed doing this.

Making light repairs most cost-effective does indeed reinforce the "reclaim meta" - but I did not intend to drastically change the game. Compared to the suggestions of 10% repair cost though, I hardly see how it makes the tanking problem worse - 40% is significantly discounted, but it's still not a negligible cost!

Onto your points:

Exp/Log formula:
I am not too fussed with the specifics. A exponential formula for the cost would be fine in my opinion, but I thought that might be too complex. But the thresholds (if any) and the cost can definitely be tweaked, set by a formula if desired. Not fussed. Concept remains the same.

Thresholds mucking up engineer ratio:
I initially envisaged merely the mass cost to change, not the required build power. So if an engineer was repairing costing -1m per tick at light damage, it would still repair at the same hp/tick but at -2m per tick at moderate damage. So the engineer ratio would NOT need to change, as long as you had the resources to finance the repairs.

That said, perhaps it is reasonable to need more build power? That was not the plan in my original suggestion though. If more build power is needed, then it would definitely make tanking harder than if it was merely cost.

You are right - I did intend for light damage to be easily reparable, and you needed to do "more serious" damage to cause "true" damage. As I said, I did not want to change the game mechanics too much, just make repair more viable in more situations.

Tanking:
Of course, without any other modifications (such as no repair if recently hit), ANY sort of cost reduction for repair can be argued to make the tanking situation worse.

Your concept of repair:
Essentially, your concept of repair is the more damaged it is, the faster you can restore its hp. Minimal/no discount.

I think this idea is quite refreshing and can add new dynamics to the game. What it does do, however, is change the game quite drastically - and I'm not sure people want that. Also, if you do this, essentially the ONLY reason people would repair is for tanking purposes. Whether that is a good/bad thing is up for debate. (I personally don't mind.)

As you mentioned, I do see it also making tanking worse, because it means if the enemy is sufficiently resourced in both buildpower and resources, the closer you get to killing the tank, the faster it gets repaired. So the tanking "problem" is exacerbated. Using your suggestion, tanking actually becomes a more viable strategy than it is at the moment (though one that costs a lot of mass, but can be done if well-resourced).

If we're aiming to keep the game dynamics similar to what they are currently, I think my suggestion achieves this better.

Statistics: Posted by whootle — 10 Jan 2014, 05:13

Re: Suggestion for change to repair

2014-01-09T22:28:09+02:00

*Personal Opinion*

I think this is a rather complicated solution to an actually easy solution. It's not a bad solution by my measure -but a simpler alternative would work just as well.

If we are going the 'repair cost scales with damage' route, a simple logarithmic or exponential equation would be a better approach to break up the tiers and allow for smoother logic. For example, under your system, a tanking unit (with engi repair) experiences a weird resilience to chip/light attacks -especially if they are burst damage. No light attack will trigger the rate change cut off if you add enough healing. No matter how many T1 you throw at this thing, you can counter it with some ratio or engis. To make further point clearer, at this first tier of damage, you need 1 engy for every 1 tank while in the 75% - 100% hp range. At this 1:1, the defender can reasonably shrug off attacks. But if a wave of tanks messes up the balance, now you need a lot more engies per tank attacking -like 3:1 or whatever. More tanks and you are at 7:1 (or worse).
It's awkward! You'd go from handling tanking fairly well to OMG I can't sustain this -just because you dropped a hp teir.

Move to a logarithmic scale, and the ratio slowly moves. 1:1 -> 1.5:1 -> 2:1... As the attackers build momentum, they gain the upper hand. But if you stack a wave of engies, the affect is mitigated at any stage. It's not a sudden 'each engy is 1/3 as potent' ordeal. No matter when they are added, they have a scaled affect.

/Scaled cost

Now my bigger concern is the notion of having scaled cost in the first place. Firewall posted about a flat cost that solved everything. I don't remember the exact number, but there exists a number that makes repair at a certain level the better choice while reclaiming is the way to go for another level.

That said, flat costs do suffer slightly with the notion of tanking. While I don't see this actually ever happening (kill the build capacity), this is a common concern. However, your solution actually makes it worse. Since repairs are most efficient at lower tiers of damage, you now need an army to deal with one tanked object. Making the meta 'steam roll or GTFO' -which is really funny considering that is the meta reclaim forces anyway. ^_^

We need the reverse affect! When critically wounded, does it not make since that our nano bots can easily get it back in basic functioning order? "It appears you are missing a leg dear mantis, let me create this stick for you to hobble on." Not pretty, but functions! That said, we don't want a nicked structure costing an insane amount of mass to repair.

So instead of logarithmically scaling mass cost, I'd go with build time. The more damaged you are, the faster you can dump mass into it for repair. Tacked with a flat repair cost nerf, this seems most ideal to me. Getting some critically wounded units to decent hp is a reasonable time/mass investment while getting it back to 100% would just take forever (same mass cost though).

Not sure how this would work will tanking... the decrease in build time is coupled with an insane mass cost. So with the right amount of mass behind you, it is unfair for being able to tank a critically wounded PD? If you are paying 100 m/s for this thing, I think it's more or less fine.
But if it isn't, lock the build rate if hit in the last X seconds.

(Or in general, no repairs if hit in the last X seconds with a flat repair cost works as well.)

Statistics: Posted by errorblankfield — 09 Jan 2014, 22:28

Suggestion for change to repair

2014-01-09T19:41:25+02:00

Hi guys,

I've seen a few threads around discussing related issues (nerfing reclaim, buffing repair etc.) but they either appeared to be quite old, or while related, had a different main topic. So opened a new thread.

Essentially, the argument I've seen is:
- reclaim is worth (a lot of) mass
- repair costs 100% of mass
- therefore, for hp < reclaim mass percentage, apart from (rare) strategic value, it is never worth repairing.
So make repair viable. But if discount is massive, then engineering stations become potentially OP and used to tank.

I do think repair is underpowered (and therefore basically never used.) I do also think it is good that there are times when reclaim/rebuild are better options. I am thinking that it would be good, if possible, to further simulate it as in real life - that is, sometimes things AREN'T worth repairing if heavily damaged (easier to get a new one, unless you really need the old) but it IS worth it if it isn't that badly damaged.

So here is my suggestion:
When the unit is :
- lightly damaged (75-100% health), repair cost is 40% of cost.
- moderately damaged (25-75% health), repair cost is 80% of cost.
- severely damage (<25% health), repair cost is 200% of cost.

For clarity, my current idea is that repair does not need to be complete (to 100% hp) before the new rate applies. So, based on the above numbers, repairing a unit from ~0% health to 100% would cost 2x0.25 + 0.8x0.5 + 0.4 * 0.25 = 100% of cost. (I tweaked the numbers so it would be 100%. I am open to ideas to change the numbers, especially I think the severely damaged could cost even more (e.g. 600% of cost, to push full repair cost to double) to further discourage repair for highly damaged units unless you REALLY needed the unit for strategic value, e.g. a SMD, gameender etc..)

Based on above numbers, if you repair from 25% to 100%, it would be a 50% discount. Therefore, out of battle, unless severely damaged, you get a significant discount and repair is much more worth it. The lighter the damage, the cheaper (and faster) the repair. Reclaim + rebuilding would take longer (and be hardly worth it) The heavier the damage, the more it is better economically (and faster) it would be to reclaim and rebuild.

For something that is damaged to 75%, cost to repair is 0.25 * 0.4 = 10% of cost, which equals reclaim based on pure mass cost as well (but MUCH faster, retains functionality etc.).

I also think it does largely mitigate the engineering station problem - because if your attack force can't hit the units to under 75% hp, then it probably wasn't going to win anyway. And if you hit under 75% hp, the discount is not that big. And if it's quite close, the engineering stations become a massive drain on the enemy eco.

What does everyone think of the idea?

Statistics: Posted by whootle — 09 Jan 2014, 19:41