Forged Alliance Forever

Re: What do you dislike about FA's balance?

2015-01-11T11:06:25+02:00

This thread has been running for a few weeks now and has been overdue for a clean up! There's been a ton of great points brought up, some very insightful discussion, and a few popular recurring points of discussion. I've split the latter into three separate topics so that discussion is easier to follow:

Air Balance Discussion
Naval Balance Discussion
Veterancy Discussion

I've been compiling all of the points brought up into an easier-to-view format and should have some interesting data to share soon.

Statistics: Posted by uberge3k — 11 Jan 2015, 11:06

Re: What do you dislike about FA's balance?

2015-01-09T03:42:35+02:00

Hey guys,
Thought I might share some thoughts,
Take with a grain of salt, they are just ideas

Land ideas
1. Static stealth generators - maybe not only stealth but also add radar jamming like the crystals in FA campaign? power cost increase to go with that of course
2. issue with lowcost/vet/early t4 - make t4 an upgrade just like t1-t3 is....honestly why bother with t3 when you get t4 for free? if it is a further upgrade it will give acus bit more of a buff helping them out (standard upgrade buffs), it will slow down the production of experimentals by making t4 an upgrade (acu and sacu's with engis assisting like normal so not much gameplay change there in who can build it) by doing this your giving a timeframe for t3 to have its place in the game and also giving noobs and the like a bit more of a chance to counter rushing (aka dealing with the baby seal clubbing) while still keeping fair gameplay for all.

Statistics: Posted by RevanWWJD — 09 Jan 2015, 03:42

Re: What do you dislike about FA's balance?

2015-01-09T02:13:55+02:00

Hawkei wrote:
Saxxon wrote:stuff...

SupCom2 was a complete cockup. That's why I never bothered to get the game. They completely destroyed the epicosity and uniqueness which made SupCom FA what it was. SupCom2 is just like any other RTS, it is a complete regression and an exercise in mediocrity.

I liked sup com 2

Statistics: Posted by Aulex — 09 Jan 2015, 02:13

Re: What do you dislike about FA's balance?

2015-01-09T02:10:59+02:00

Saxxon wrote:
stuff...

SupCom2 was a complete cockup. That's why I never bothered to get the game. They completely destroyed the epicosity and uniqueness which made SupCom FA what it was. SupCom2 is just like any other RTS, it is a complete regression and an exercise in mediocrity.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 09 Jan 2015, 02:10

Re: What do you dislike about FA's balance?

2015-01-08T22:31:59+02:00

A couple more random thoughts I had this morning.

One of the problems in a long game starts to come up with unit cap and the sheer amount of it taken up by things like Mass Storage. I've had 10% or more of unit cap taken up by that on a large map. I do like the adjacency dynamic, it makes for more strategic planning in how you build. However, I think maybe if it was a rebuild of the current game in a new one, a few things can be tweaked to get the best of SupCom 1, FA and SupCom 2.

Energy and mass in the game are collected at certain points and used by engineers and building with no connection between them. This assumes some kind of transfer medium ala Tesla where mass is converted to energy and back again and used at the build site along with energy from production. So one thing that could be done, is have mass and energy storage rather than dispersed all around the map for the adjacency, have a collector building that needs to have the storage adjacent for the bonus. Now of course that makes a one point vulnerability, so you might build several of them. But you won't have 50 of them with 4 storage each for a total of 250 units toward cap... The number of collectors you have might provide a bonus to a point, so perhaps a 10% bonus up to 10 which doubles output.

Another thing in regards to deficient units and upgrading, SupCom 2 had the research mechanic. I'd rather see it done in a more FA manner where you don't need to build a ridiculous amount of research buildings which late in the game are basically just PD/AA housings once your research is done. So you might build 1-5 research buildings, and the research done would be like any other upgrade requiring mass and energy. Some could be sequential, others stand alone. IE, UEF T1 subs upgraded to T2, while that normally would be a part of tech progression it was originally not done for a perception of balance. I'd maintain Torp boats are a poor substitute for a T2 sub as they are also vulnerable to surface fire and thus die faster in a fleet engagement. So, you get the T2 navy yard, but you might have to research the sub upgrade at a research facility that then lets you upgrade existing subs and make new ones that are now T2. Or for instance, mass or energy harvesting upgrades, similar to how the adjacency works now but with the global function that SupCom 2 had. Along with the first suggestion, you might get 50% from having your mass/energy collector/transmitter adjacent to storage, and get another 50% from research.

Another thing to make would be similar to SupCom 2 where factories also could be upgraded with defenses. Building defenses around them is a key, but the problem comes in that you have a PD/torp launcher on one side, the enemy attacks from the other. I still like the tech levels though, SupCom 2 fell flat when they took that out.

Statistics: Posted by Saxxon — 08 Jan 2015, 22:31

Re: What do you dislike about FA's balance?

2015-01-08T13:29:05+02:00

It's of course just a suggestion, but I'd be against cheaper units in mobile factories. This changes the late game balance too much.

In that case, the Aeon would dominate T3 air as soon as they keep a CZAR alive. UEF the same, for land (the percivals are already the best experimental killer, to build a lot of them a lot cheaper...)

If the map involves water, it's suddenly the UEF that will dominate T3 air, and also a lot sooner than the Aeon possibly could, with that Atlantis. The atlantis is also easier to keep alive than the CZAR.

Finally, the Aeon have cheap as hell T2 navy.

The Cybran has a mobile factory as well, but the way the unit builds (you have to build buildings like it's an engineer, then the buildings spawn into units), makes the mobile factory horribly inefficient.

The Seraphim... Get nothing. Add to it an experimental that doesn't stand a chance as soon as units get to close range (Ythota) and an experimental that doesn't stand a chance as soon as the opponent gets air dominance (Ahwassa), and your balance is completely skewed.

Now, the CZAR as a support unit would be a good idea. However, if you make it stronger against Air, so that it can hold out longer, you'll also have to change the attack ability. It's an air support unit, so the effect it has on land forces or bases would be reduced. Just slowing the unit down wouldn't be enough I think. You'll have to reduce the beam attack as well. Or, you slow it down a lot, so that it'll have a hard time chasing more than one land unit (I think that's too much then, then the unit is so slow it won't be able to fill its support role for air).

Whatever you do with slowing the unit down. It already has a hard time against a couple of cruisers, so a slow down will make it impossible for the unit to go over water that's controlled by your opponent. Then again, if it's going to be a support unit, it shouldn't have that ability.

Statistics: Posted by Plasma_Wolf — 08 Jan 2015, 13:29

Re: What do you dislike about FA's balance?

2015-01-08T13:24:05+02:00

I like those numbers, preserve both functions while still allowing dedicated sniping. Would gladly playtest this ^^, air crash is a nice touch especially. Maybe firebeetle to 2160 so it can still snipe a t2 pgen?

Statistics: Posted by Ceneraii — 08 Jan 2015, 13:24

Re: What do you dislike about FA's balance?

2015-01-08T13:18:57+02:00

Ceneraii wrote:
Yes you're right, I should've been more specific Yeah, mercy would need small hp and fuel buff, but not too much. As for damage, I think 700-1000 would be nice damage, as for aoe, not sure needs testing, without friendly fire ofc and explode on death, you can snipe armies then fairly effectively, it can still be used to snipe medium-to-low hp coms and some eco if wanted. I would even go so far as add a detonate button for the beetle

1000 dmg is too low for units that have only one shot and cost 300mass.
for example obsidian cost 360 and take 480dmg after first shot. ok only for one units. but still..

I would see it for beetle 4,5->7 aoe and 3500->2000dmg and voliatile explosion 5radius for 1000dmg
and on mercy 60hp(alive first salve from int) 2x more fuel. and 3->5radius and 2400->1500 dmg with air crash dmg 25-> 750 on 3 radius

Also mervy have buildtime 2000 when beetle 1200. Make no sence make this different.

but its very big change of this units, and have no idea how it can work in reality maybe can be too op or totaly ussles. it need plenty of balance testing work.

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 08 Jan 2015, 13:18

Re: What do you dislike about FA's balance?

2015-01-08T08:49:04+02:00

Ithilis_Quo wrote:
Ceneraii wrote:It might be crazy, but they could be changed to deliver less damage over a wider area, kind of like buying a single (cybran) t3 arty shell at t2 stage, potent enough to kill lots of t1 and do heavy damage to t2, turning them into anti-army weapons instead of sniping tools. Any thoughts on this?

Agree i love so much this kind of sniping. But thay are nearly ussles for enithing else. And have them only for one role is not so good as have them for more role. I like this idea.

But T3 arty have 4600 dmg on 9aoe = aaaa lot! or T3 mobile arty have only 450dmg on 7 aoe = ooonly few!
That would need a bit different number and also dmg cant be too low for still let them be posible used for sniping. And dont deny this function.

-after this change but mercy need hp and fuel buff. 10hp and low fuel is realy not enought when would be not so effective for sniping and would fly over army where first AA shot take them down.
-Also beetle would be used against army much more offten when would also explode after kiling not only after comand/hiting target. Make them volatile as is Pgen would be crazy risky as was in past before change where explosion also hit owner units and make more dmg in own army as on enemy. I would like see then it would be volatile but explosion dont affect ally units. as firing have same excuse for freindly fire dont get dmg. (volatile dmg less effective as normal "hit" dmg)

Yes you're right, I should've been more specific Yeah, mercy would need small hp and fuel buff, but not too much. As for damage, I think 700-1000 would be nice damage, as for aoe, not sure needs testing, without friendly fire ofc and explode on death, you can snipe armies then fairly effectively, it can still be used to snipe medium-to-low hp coms and some eco if wanted. I would even go so far as add a detonate button for the beetle

Statistics: Posted by Ceneraii — 08 Jan 2015, 08:49

Re: What do you dislike about FA's balance?

2015-01-08T03:17:01+02:00

_VODKA_ wrote:
Neutrino wrote:Experimentals can be built too easily.

Was that point raised in this thread? I agree with the suggestion though. Making T4 more expensive would increase the usefulness of other tech tiers, and add to the feel of epicness a T4 should bring.

It would also (partly) counter the veterancy problem. Having T4 on the field later (between 20 to 30 minutes at the earliest) means less cannonfodder and weak stuff to eat for vet. I think when people talk about the vet problem with T4, they are thinking of a fast Monkey or GC rolling up lower tech opponents who have to watch their last minute gunship / mercy / percival / ravager spam fail completely because the health of the damn thing keeps jumping up.

It’s also why they have a small window where they can win over t3. You sure u wanna remobve that?

Oh that applies to land t4 obviously

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 08 Jan 2015, 03:17

Re: What do you dislike about FA's balance?

2015-01-08T02:09:02+02:00

On the point of sniping units like firebeetle and mercy, their role is pretty singular right now.
It might be crazy, but they could be changed to deliver less damage over a wider area, kind of like buying a single (cybran) t3 arty shell at t2 stage, potent enough to kill lots of t1 and do heavy damage to t2, turning them into anti-army weapons instead of sniping tools. Any thoughts on this?

Edit: I agree also that RAS is too good, having heavy undamageable eco for a minimal price is not nice. When I read resource allocation system for the first time when still a noob I assumed it made building things with com cheaper, not give massive t3 eco ;D

Edit2: Also, soothsayer and eye of rhianne are pretty much never built I think, might be worthwhile to look at these buildings and see how they can be made useful.

Statistics: Posted by Ceneraii — 08 Jan 2015, 02:09

Re: What do you dislike about FA's balance?

2015-01-07T21:34:25+02:00

Mad`Mozart wrote:
Also RAS is OP, nerf RAS

(no trolling)

RAS is powerful, yes, and all factions get it. How does that make it OP? Did you mean to type "double RAS is OP, nerf double RAS"? Not all factions get double RAS, and this gives those factions an economy advantage on maps and game modes where the game goes on long enough for people to get RAS. This is a balance discussion. By definition, if everyone gets the same thing, it's balanced.

Edit : Err, ok, I think I see your point. You're saying that since ACU RAS is better than any other economy upgrade besides a tech 1 mex, it is always much more favorable than getting those t3 mex upgrades. I guess this is true. And it gives players a supply of energy that cannot be be attacked (unless you can kill the acu which wins you the game instantly anyway)

You would prefer a game where all economy is attackable, and there is no benefit to turtling? Perhaps you would prefer it if the mex upgrades were removed from the game as well?

Statistics: Posted by BrickedKeyboard — 07 Jan 2015, 21:34

Re: What do you dislike about FA's balance?

2015-01-07T20:12:09+02:00

Also RAS is OP, nerf RAS

(no trolling)

Statistics: Posted by Mad`Mozart — 07 Jan 2015, 20:12

Re: What do you dislike about FA's balance?

2015-01-07T14:21:36+02:00

and who will decide? i want to be parth of it

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 07 Jan 2015, 14:21

Re: What do you dislike about FA's balance?

2015-01-07T13:24:35+02:00

Not decided yet.

Statistics: Posted by Aurion — 07 Jan 2015, 13:24