Forged Alliance Forever

Re: How much should units be tweaked each patch?

2014-03-24T17:44:44+02:00

A few examples of what lower players have seen and said that maybe higher rated don't see as much is the very late game units. Mainly because 90% of team games played are Gap.

The good - "the buff from artillery adjacent to t3 power (I think it is/was 40%) is maybe OP?"
The bad - "czar is OP vs ASF"
the ugly - "XP UP! Kept getting killed by restorers/strats/jesters"

I believe sensible lower rated players with a decent idea for strategy of the game can have (and do, its a 1 vote per person system) valuable input. The problem is when loweer rated players keep trying the same strategy even when it isn't working and saying sensible play/counters are OP. Throwing restorers at flak, attacking with XP when opponents have air dominance, not building PD to protect against tele etc.

Statistics: Posted by Epson — 24 Mar 2014, 17:44

Re: How much should units be tweaked each patch?

2014-03-15T21:47:09+02:00

RoLa wrote:
I think it gets more difficult for the patch team every time a new balance period starts, because the game got more and more balanced over time. There are perhaps some smaller imbalances but players under 1500 rating should care more about getting better than complaining about a presumed imbalance.

I can see this being an issue. The more a game becomes balanced, the easier it is to unbalance it with a change. But please don't be a "ratist" (see what i did there ). Coming from someone who has played sense the release, had a rating of ~1700 during the ~3612 patch but is now currently only a 1200 (I just want to have fun and play gimmick strategies on occasion which kills rating. Is that so wrong?). I don't like being told to just "get better". I know a problem when I see one. I may not know every map perfectly or have a high APM, but I know the game.

However; I do understand your anger towards people who may have just started playing and know very little about the game and thus have a low rating .

Statistics: Posted by rockoe10 — 15 Mar 2014, 21:47

Re: How much should units be tweaked each patch?

2014-03-14T10:11:17+02:00

FAF has brought incredible and indispensable things to the game, out of the top of my head : engie mod (this alone was worth it!), better use of SCU, navy rebalance, less T3 ASF blobs etc... along with bugfixing and other things to come (SAM overkill fix from Resin...). Would it have been possible with a "small balance changes" policy ? I wonder.

My thanks go to all the people who have taken the time to continue to improve the game with the patches and especially to Pip who never gave up being the cornerstone of the balance teams despite the shitload of critics (more or less useful but who are always welcomed of course), and Zock for its "engie mod".

Eternal thanks to ZEP for tons of reasons of course but this goes without saying...

Statistics: Posted by Krapougnak — 14 Mar 2014, 10:11

Re: How much should units be tweaked each patch?

2014-03-14T09:43:23+02:00

I think it gets more difficult for the patch team every time a new balance period starts, because the game got more and more balanced over time. There are perhaps some smaller imbalances but players under 1500 rating should care more about getting better than complaining about a presumed imbalance.

There is not a single unit anymore which can be spammed alone without getting countered by something else. So the tests are getting more and more complex. There have to be tests with unit compositions against units compositions. E.g. the aeon t2 mobile shield is a hover unit, buffing or nerfing has indirectly impact on navy strength. So theroretically you have to revaluate a change on a unit like mobile shield for every aspect of the game with any faction against another one. That is very time consuming and annoying.

Statistics: Posted by RoLa — 14 Mar 2014, 09:43

Re: How much should units be tweaked each patch?

2014-03-12T10:23:41+02:00

As far as I can see the balancing process is a pretty democratic one (note, not anarchic, which is good). I guess for some if they think there's a problem then it can feel like there's a long time in between each balance period, but it prevents people to bring up 'things they didn't learn to counter yet' as potential balance issues.

Statistics: Posted by Aurion — 12 Mar 2014, 10:23

Re: How much should units be tweaked each patch?

2014-03-11T19:03:12+02:00

We are all pretty passionate about one or two things we would love to see improved. The key word there is passionate. We are all excited about FAF and continue to play and enjoy seeing improvements. I think that's great that we share a love for a 7 year old game. We have passionate players who care about it's future. That's a very positive thing. Even if it's expression sounds negative through complaints, it's still good to have passionate players rather than a dying community and game.

On topic: I agree that balance changes should occur in pretty small increments over time. That's what I see happening already though. I can't really think of a negative change. I'm sure that others can...

With that said, I hope we as a community and our developers continue to seek further refinements and improvements.

A hearty good job to all involved in the coding and testing!

Statistics: Posted by Flipper — 11 Mar 2014, 19:03

Re: How much should units be tweaked each patch?

2014-03-11T17:55:22+02:00

Ze_PilOt wrote:
sasin wrote: Furthermore, the imbalances in sup com are relatively small.

Only because we did a lot of changes in a rather short period of time.

The reason was the state of the game when we took it :

3599 patch had useless T2/T3 tiers for land, no T3 tier for navy (and some would argue : 2 factions only for navy), no T2 tier for air, no SCUs, all-mighty experimentals, and overall, was very unidimensional.
I'm not even talking of artilleries,....
We basically doubled the roster of units in the game.

That was a long road, and some adjustments are still needed (the air play is, in my opinion, still completely broken).

But I'm not sure we will go further actually, as it's a constant fight against clueless people that think we are doing a bad job (hopefully a small minority, but sadly way too vocal) and it's too tiresome.
Maybe they should look back before saying that..

Also, the next big thing is Nomads implementation, and it will enough work already

Please don't group me in with Anaryl, and like I said up front, I'm not saying you've made the game worse. Overall the patches have been really good, I was saying. This thread wasn't supposed to be about whether or not people have done a good job, but rather, in general, about the idea that maybe small changes, which require a further reinforcing change in a future patch, might on some level be preferable to big ones. No hidden agenda or insults! The game is so much better now than 3599! And, to be fair, I didn't play super competitively back then so maybe then bigger changes were called for!

Statistics: Posted by sasin — 11 Mar 2014, 17:55

Re: How much should units be tweaked each patch?

2014-03-11T15:26:17+02:00

There were tons of changes reverted but people don't remember them because they don't follow the balance process. A third of the planned changes of 3629 were reverted and never made official but even in official patches, changes are often reverted or seriously amended (the latest being the aurora).

If we were to listen to Djostkov, we would have still broken bombers missing their first bomb drop, but able to drop every 2 seconds when abused, so useless in normal use and utterly OP when microed. And among many other amazing things, we would have his loved OP Restorers with their 3599 version, "the best balance ever" version, and OP mantis able to turn with super fast speed, like in a previous FAF patch that caused a shitload of complains. But oh, wait, the Djostkov mantis was reverted, which is weird since there is supposedly never any reversion in FAF.

I could go on with the list of changes that were reverted or amended, but the saddest thing is that people like Anaryl will cry about a single change they don't like, when they agree or don't mind with 95 others, and still judge the balance process is bad.

And nobody was ever banned for not agreeing with Zep about balance stuff. Djostkov is the living proof of that, and gosh, I find it atounding that Zep never banned him even though he keeps complaining about FAF in FAF chat and promotes an alternative lobby that exists only in his imagination.

Statistics: Posted by pip — 11 Mar 2014, 15:26

Re: How much should units be tweaked each patch?

2014-03-11T14:44:38+02:00

about the bomber in 3599 yes you have shorter reload time BUT ... you don't have a script that adjust the acceleration so that you can pine point precision everthing. I told you from begining this script will solve a pb and introduce some others...

Anaryl is right on the supposed "good" work of the balanced team.

I NEVER saw a roll back after trying some stuff in previous patch and this especially for air T3. Unless you cant afford a better gameplay stay with what people where used to play.

Statistics: Posted by dstojkov — 11 Mar 2014, 14:44

Re: How much should units be tweaked each patch?

2014-03-11T12:21:25+02:00

Anaryl wrote:
That's demonstrably untrue. It has been the biggest balance issue in FAF by far. It's been the most discussed issue bar none

Again, in your head.
Biggest issues, far more discuted : T3 air/restorers, mercy, T3 naval.

It's not biased on my part considering you introduced the change.

No change was introduced, by me or anyone.
Try to double bomb in 3599. Tip : it works, and it's even easier as the reload time is shorter.
So, yes, biased.

Actually, if we follow your logic, it's our duty to respect how the game is and never change it.

Are you saying that I've never contributed or attempted discussion? I'm sorry that you are disappointed that I no longer felt like bashing my head against that particular brick wall.

And still, you are currently doing it. And on every occasion possible.

What I meant by "never contributed" is that you never did it in the right way : By giving proof instead of feelings.

Let's not forget that everyone who disagrees with you in more than a token way ends up getting banned.

Do you feel banned?

So, let's be honest here, how much balance participation is there really?

As much as you want to put in.

Also, may I remind you that you've tried to be the head of the balance team and that almost nobody voted for you?
Do you think I've biased the vote, or that the community doesn't believe you are right for the task?

And by the way:
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=5537#p55897

Even there you didn't talk about the bomber.
For you it's the BIGGEST ISSUE EVER, and still you don't bring it up.
Talk about consistency..

If you were elected as balance team leader, you wouldn't have changed it, so the blame would have been on you and only you, I presume.
As you weren't, I guess it's easier for you to blame the fantastic work of the elected team..

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 11 Mar 2014, 12:21

Re: How much should units be tweaked each patch?

2014-03-11T10:13:06+02:00

Ze_PilOt wrote:
Anaryl wrote:When you have a situation like we do with bombers,

The situation is in your head. That's not our concerns to fix it.

That's demonstrably untrue. It has been the biggest balance issue in FAF by far. It's been the most discussed issue bar none.

Anaryl wrote:Some balance iterations have been so broken that we should have just reverted, and rebuilt the patch.

Again, your very biased opinion.
If it was true, why wasn't it reverted by vote in the next patch period?

It's not biased on my part considering you introduced the change.

Also, the patch period are opened to every one, and everything is discussed publicly. So if you are not pleased and think it's a bad work, it's also your fault, as much, if not more, than the balance team (the BT is there to listen to the player and their playtest, if they are telling crap or nothing, they can't do anything about it).
It's true it's easier to not make mistake when you do nothing...

Are you saying that I've never contributed or attempted discussion? I'm sorry that you are disappointed that I no longer felt like bashing my head against that particular brick wall. So no, the onus is squarely on you/the balance team.

Let's not forget that everyone who disagrees with you in more than a token way ends up getting banned. So, let's be honest here, how much balance participation is there really?

Statistics: Posted by Anaryl — 11 Mar 2014, 10:13

Re: How much should units be tweaked each patch?

2014-03-11T09:07:00+02:00

Anaryl wrote:
When you have a situation like we do with bombers,

The situation is in your head. That's not our concerns to fix it.

Anaryl wrote:
Some balance iterations have been so broken that we should have just reverted, and rebuilt the patch.

Again, your very biased opinion.
If it was true, why wasn't it reverted by vote in the next patch period?

Also, the patch period are opened to every one, and everything is discussed publicly. So if you are not pleased and think it's a bad work, it's also your fault, as much, if not more, than the balance team (the BT is there to listen to the players and their playtest, if they are telling crap or nothing, they can't do anything about it).
It's true it's easier to not make mistake when you do nothing...

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 11 Mar 2014, 09:07

Re: How much should units be tweaked each patch?

2014-03-11T09:03:41+02:00

sasin wrote:
Furthermore, the imbalances in sup com are relatively small.

Only because we did a lot of changes in a rather short period of time.

The reason was the state of the game when we took it :

3599 patch had useless T2/T3 tiers for land, no T3 tier for navy (and some would argue : 2 factions only for navy), no T2 tier for air, no SCUs, all-mighty experimentals, and overall, was very unidimensional.
I'm not even talking of artilleries,....
We basically doubled the roster of units in the game.

That was a long road, and some adjustments are still needed (the air play is, in my opinion, still completely broken).

But I'm not sure we will go further actually, as it's a constant fight against clueless people that think we are doing a bad job (hopefully a small minority, but sadly way too vocal) and it's too tiresome.
Maybe they should look back before saying that..

Also, the next big thing is Nomads implementation, and it will enough work already

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 11 Mar 2014, 09:03

Re: How much should units be tweaked each patch?

2014-03-11T07:44:28+02:00

Wait, what? You said you disagree, but it sounds like you two are of the same mind for the most part... ?

I disagree that they have done a good job.

Statistics: Posted by Anaryl — 11 Mar 2014, 07:44

Re: How much should units be tweaked each patch?

2014-03-11T05:51:41+02:00

Wait, what? You said you disagree, but it sounds like you two are of the same mind for the most part... ?

I certainly agree with this though:

Anaryl wrote:
Furthermore, we are not the games developers, merely it's custodians. This means there is a rightful bias towards balance conservatism, but the opposite is carried out in practise.

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 11 Mar 2014, 05:51