Forged Alliance Forever Forged Alliance Forever Forums 2017-06-03T16:30:23+02:00 /feed.php?f=42&t=14685 2017-06-03T16:30:23+02:00 2017-06-03T16:30:23+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=14685&p=150171#p150171 <![CDATA[Re: Good stuff in Equilibrium, why not in main game? + lil r]]>
Mobile factory construction has been tackled by retard only in the past few months, while game devs were working on other things like shield bounce (Also EQ feature made it to FAF). I have not yet looked at retard's solution or code, and we both agreed it was probably best to use EQ to iron out the immediate issues with doing it. If it can be made polished enough for main game, it is so definitely coming. Complaint 2: Killed.

These things take time.

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 03 Jun 2017, 16:30


]]>
2017-06-02T20:34:00+02:00 2017-06-02T20:34:00+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=14685&p=150138#p150138 <![CDATA[Re: Good stuff in Equilibrium, why not in main game? + lil r]]>
anyway, theres good stuff in eq because its the best balance. clearly. xD

however having said that i wouldnt just go around and copy paste random parts from there. this is because eq is balanced around the big picture and not a hotfix approach. it plays similarly enough for 2k players not to tell the difference, but theres changes under the hood that make it "just work"

harms sinks to the bottom in eq because its part of a working system of torpedoes, torpedo defenses and depth charges. faf has no such system. just putting in the harms from there would make it a pain in the ass to deal with.
the same thing applies to jamming. again, in eq its part of a working and developed system, thats why its fine there.


well whatever, nice to see the mod is appreciated xD

Statistics: Posted by Exotic_Retard — 02 Jun 2017, 20:34


]]>
2017-06-02T16:37:56+02:00 2017-06-02T16:37:56+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=14685&p=150126#p150126 <![CDATA[Re: Good stuff in Equilibrium, why not in main game? + lil r]]>
PhilipJFry wrote:
Evildrew wrote:Cybran bs could be nerfted to make up for it.

I have no clue what you're talking about. UEF doesn't have sub hunters and nerfing their destroyer is out of question imho.
All Battleships and all tactical missiles are capable of hitting HARMS in the current patch.

Derp, meant the torp boat

Statistics: Posted by zeroAPM — 02 Jun 2017, 16:37


]]>
2017-06-02T16:33:57+02:00 2017-06-02T16:33:57+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=14685&p=150125#p150125 <![CDATA[Re: Good stuff in Equilibrium, why not in main game? + lil r]]> Statistics: Posted by Morax — 02 Jun 2017, 16:33


]]>
2017-06-02T16:26:55+02:00 2017-06-02T16:26:55+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=14685&p=150124#p150124 <![CDATA[Re: Good stuff in Equilibrium, why not in main game? + lil r]]>
Evildrew wrote:
Phil, you can build a paragon by the time cybran harms creep gets close enough to your base on setons if that is what you fear.
You guys just think too linear and thats why balancing unit for unit is a terrible approach for a strategy game.


Evildrew wrote:
Cybran bs could be nerfted to make up for it.

Are you for real?

Statistics: Posted by PhilipJFry — 02 Jun 2017, 16:26


]]>
2017-06-02T16:12:17+02:00 2017-06-02T16:12:17+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=14685&p=150123#p150123 <![CDATA[Re: Good stuff in Equilibrium, why not in main game? + lil r]]> You guys just think too linear and thats why balancing unit for unit is a terrible approach for a strategy game.

Statistics: Posted by Evildrew — 02 Jun 2017, 16:12


]]>
2017-06-02T15:54:32+02:00 2017-06-02T15:54:32+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=14685&p=150121#p150121 <![CDATA[Re: Good stuff in Equilibrium, why not in main game? + lil r]]>
Evildrew wrote:
Cybran bs could be nerfted to make up for it.

So you want to nerf an offensive unit to make up for the buff of a defensive structure? I thought you didn't like how the game got slower or something like that.

zeroAPM wrote:
You can nerf the sub hunter and/or the destroyer.
Compensate the small range with the ability to, more or less, force the enemy to come into the destroyer's reach.
Also, fly a scout and target the correct blips as it gives vision?

I have no clue what you're talking about. UEF doesn't have sub hunters and nerfing their destroyer is out of question imho.

Farmsletje wrote:
I'm not sure if the uef and sera cruiser can still hit the harm though.

All Battleships and all tactical missiles are capable of hitting HARMS in the current patch.

Statistics: Posted by PhilipJFry — 02 Jun 2017, 15:54


]]>
2017-06-02T15:53:52+02:00 2017-06-02T15:53:52+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=14685&p=150120#p150120 <![CDATA[Re: Good stuff in Equilibrium, why not in main game? + lil r]]>
Evildrew wrote:
I use logic as my evidence farm :)

On a side note, what about wagners having some cloak effect under water unless they fire their useless torpedoes. Would be funny on a navy map to roll them under the navy and into someones base :D
I remember from those old war movies that when a sub would dive and lay on the ground (not sink), sonar couldnt detect it.

Further to my point about whether harms are OP. My anaysis shows on its own its not significantly imbalanced vs a weighted average of counters. The OPness as farm mentioned in combination with other units requires some strategizing. A battleship takes like 45 seconds to sink to 3 of them. However battleships could also target the sams out of range of the harms and free up space for torps. An easy counter to massed harms and sams is a nuke. The immobility of harms is a weakness not to forget. I just dont think they are OP. Cybran bs could be nerfted to make up for it.


In those 45 seconds you just had 3 SACUs build harms closer to the battleship. You retreat. Process continues. What do you know, you're in your naval yard unable to counter the harms.

Nukes are kind of a counter to everything, that's their point.

Wagners with cloak = can't build any coastal mex until you get a t3 omni. Really good bal.

War submarines are not capable of sinking to the ocean floor in our era, don't use modern weapons let alone movies to balance a game set 1800 years in the future.

Statistics: Posted by FtXCommando — 02 Jun 2017, 15:53


]]>
2017-06-02T15:35:07+02:00 2017-06-02T15:35:07+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=14685&p=150116#p150116 <![CDATA[Re: Good stuff in Equilibrium, why not in main game? + lil r]]>

On a side note, what about wagners having some cloak effect under water unless they fire their useless torpedoes. Would be funny on a navy map to roll them under the navy and into someones base :D
I remember from those old war movies that when a sub would dive and lay on the ground (not sink), sonar couldnt detect it.

Further to my point about whether harms are OP. My anaysis shows on its own its not significantly imbalanced vs a weighted average of counters. The OPness as farm mentioned in combination with other units requires some strategizing. A battleship takes like 45 seconds to sink to 3 of them. However battleships could also target the sams out of range of the harms and free up space for torps. An easy counter to massed harms and sams is a nuke. The immobility of harms is a weakness not to forget. I just dont think they are OP. Cybran bs could be nerfted to make up for it.

Statistics: Posted by Evildrew — 02 Jun 2017, 15:35


]]>
2017-06-02T15:04:49+02:00 2017-06-02T15:04:49+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=14685&p=150113#p150113 <![CDATA[Re: Good stuff in Equilibrium, why not in main game? + lil r]]>
Evildrew wrote:
People are only listened to if their points coincide with the opinion of those who pull the trigger. "Balance" is wishy washy concept based on opinions. Data and analysis is never presented to scrutinise.


oh yes, tell me more

Statistics: Posted by biass — 02 Jun 2017, 15:04


]]>
2017-06-02T14:49:56+02:00 2017-06-02T14:49:56+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=14685&p=150112#p150112 <![CDATA[Re: Good stuff in Equilibrium, why not in main game? + lil r]]>
PhilipJFry wrote:
The radar jamming change is a major buff for UEF navy and i personally wouldn't want it in unless we nerf them in some other way.
Also the radar jamming reappears in the current patch if you lose radar/sonar coverage of the frigate so saying it never reappears is not entirely correct.

You can nerf the sub hunter and/or the destroyer.
Compensate the small range with the ability to, more or less, force the enemy to come into the destroyer's reach.
Also, fly a scout and target the correct blips as it gives vision?

Statistics: Posted by zeroAPM — 02 Jun 2017, 14:49


]]>
2017-06-02T13:50:19+02:00 2017-06-02T13:50:19+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=14685&p=150109#p150109 <![CDATA[Re: Good stuff in Equilibrium, why not in main game? + lil r]]>
But yeah i do agree. Overall i don't like EQ, but there are some pretty nice features i won't mind seeing implemented.

You musn't forget, however, that just like pd on land, harms function best when you combine them with units. And even though they can be damaged by groundfiring they can still be very strong if you rush them on smaller water maps or when you want to stall the enemy navy. Most of the time harms are accompanied by some sams, which, together with the harm HP makes them quite hard to kill, especially if you cant groundfire.

I'm not sure if the uef and sera cruiser can still hit the harm though.

Statistics: Posted by Farmsletje — 02 Jun 2017, 13:50


]]>
2017-06-02T13:19:06+02:00 2017-06-02T13:19:06+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=14685&p=150106#p150106 <![CDATA[Re: Good stuff in Equilibrium, why not in main game? + lil r]]> I will check out how naval units stack up vs harms on paper, when i have a few mins this afternoon.

Statistics: Posted by Evildrew — 02 Jun 2017, 13:19


]]>
2017-06-02T12:40:24+02:00 2017-06-02T12:40:24+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=14685&p=150104#p150104 <![CDATA[Re: Good stuff in Equilibrium, why not in main game? + lil r]]>
Can point out the targeting issue in the current patch with the Janus bomber? And if you have a fix for it make a PR on github since such a thing is not really balance related.

Statistics: Posted by PhilipJFry — 02 Jun 2017, 12:40


]]>
2017-06-02T12:31:51+02:00 2017-06-02T12:31:51+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=14685&p=150103#p150103 <![CDATA[Re: Good stuff in Equilibrium, why not in main game? + lil r]]> it would have to fire upwards but it would be a cool feature of them being better in deep water and weak in shallow water. I guess that needs to still be considered. What about janus bomber. Its targeting works correctly and as intended in pre august mods?

About that jamming i agree, your opponent pays to scout. So you clicking off/on is a fair trade off to restore the jamming effect. If you dont notice it has been scouted you should stay punished for not paying attention :)

Statistics: Posted by Evildrew — 02 Jun 2017, 12:31


]]>