Forged Alliance Forever

Re: A thought about T4

2013-07-28T19:38:50+02:00

comparing SupCom2 to FA is like comparing a banana to an apple
object
apple is just better

Statistics: Posted by ColonelSheppard — 28 Jul 2013, 19:38

Re: A thought about T4

2013-07-28T19:06:42+02:00

abcabcabc339 wrote:
prodromos wrote:Giving credit to eternal whiners, destroyed supcom2:
1. oh oh too difficult to reclaim, just remove it
2. oh oh the units, have problems in pathfinding waisting computational power, let's replace it with the unnatural flowfield(yupee battleships and colossi skating on ice like ballerinas!)
3.oh my god too high graphics requirements(lol), let's make it look like a toy from the AOE era.
4. whine! my t1 units can't be used in later stages, let's buff them so that a tiny winy mouse can bring down a t4 behemoth(oh yeah the revenge of little people!)

1. Reclaim is honestly a shitty feature.
2. Take 700 engineers and have them assist a factory, see if they skate. (this does not happen in Supcom2)
3. The graphics look better and cleaner this is A PHILISOPHICAL TRUTH.
4. No one whined about that.

Supcom 2 is a better game because: Units do what they are supposed to do. Units do what you tell them to do, when you tell them to do it.

If you think Supcom 2 is the better game, you are most probably wasting your time on these boards.

Statistics: Posted by pip — 28 Jul 2013, 19:06

Re: A thought about T4

2013-07-28T19:08:05+02:00

Reclaim is a bit overdone in FA because of it's high ratio.
Should be somewhere between 40% and 60%, definitely not more and the reclaim time should be increased a bit.
Current state encourages to only attack when u can completely dominate the opponent, meaning less room to harass and more overplay where you win by eco microing better or by making a better type of units.
On smaller maps or more crowded maps this is compounded by the commander being worth a lot of time and unit amount.
you cant harass a bit cause even if you kill more units than you lose you are still feeding him mass and just having a medium advantage in unit amounts is not enough because of the commander.This does not matter in 1v1s but in team games pushing with com(to counter his com defending, and use your unit advantage to overtake the position and get the reclaim) is extremely dangerous because of how vulnerable it is to t2 Air.

Statistics: Posted by CopyyyCattt — 28 Jul 2013, 18:59

Re: A thought about T4

2013-07-28T18:39:38+02:00

I nearly managed not to answer but i simply couldn't, sorry.

1. Reclaim in SC2 is honestly a shitt feature indeed
2. 700 engys on factory? bad idea
3. SupCom2 grafics look like from a comic, yes it might be cleaner though
4. yeah basicly by that 10 units per faction were removed, gj with that

Statistics: Posted by ColonelSheppard — 28 Jul 2013, 18:39

Re: A thought about T4

2013-07-18T19:03:36+02:00

I cant say anything about the new patch...but if XPs got nerfed cause of it im hapy TBH.
ATM even on flat maps without much porc you still see XPs spammed often...Its rediculeous. I think they should be for those long porcy games...where the front line is covered with many untis and defense so you need units that are great porc breakers..meanign units with low reload time and high dmg per shot that have a slow turning and moving ray and a slow turret so they are not good at catching smaller moving units.This would give them a clear place in the balance.

Statistics: Posted by CopyyyCattt — 18 Jul 2013, 19:03

Re: A thought about T4

2013-07-18T17:54:41+02:00

CopyyyCattt wrote:
What role would you prescribe to them if you disagree with my proposition?

To be honest, aside from what you said about nerfing them so that less players build them, (which doesn't make any sense to me) It's not really clear to me that you're really proposing anything. You want there to be fewer experimentals in games? But the complaint is already that they aren't worth building in engymod, so it seems like you got that wish...?

CopyyyCattt wrote:
So what is their point? what is the role if not line breakers?You tell me.
Don't just tell me they shouldn't be for defense breaking.
Tell me what than their role within the balance should be.
Should they just be the ultimate cost efficiency units? better for cost than any other units?
Should they be glass cannon? Needing support and someone else to tank for them while they do massive damage?
...

You say balanced in such a way so that a player owuld need ot use them as part of a larger force..OK..How would that happen?
Make them buff units around them somehow but make their stats lower in general?Give a specific solution to their role in the balance.

I think they're pretty good as they are right now, They're very powerful, but they can't wade through hordes of smaller units without support, and they often fight each other to or near a draw. I'm not saying they shouldn't be used for defense breaking, they are large and powerful units with high HP, after all. I'm just saying that they shouldn't be powerful enough to smash through a base and its defenders by themselves. And they aren't. So I don't really see a problem in their "role in the balance" that requires a "solution."

Prodromos started this thread by saying that he would rather the experimentals be (which they are not right now) able to beat their own worth in T3 units. He also (I think) said they should also be costed such that it would be easier to build your own T3 units to counter enemy T3 armies, and you would only be rolling out experimentals in the late game, once you have secured an economy and some field position.

I'm saying that, while this wouldn't be bad, I think that right now, experimentals function more along the lines of adding power and flexibility to your existing army. They are typically easier to position - they are all amphibious, and they can all be constructed conveniently, without the need for a large factory infrastructure. They also provide more damage and HP per unit than the T3 units, so you don't need to wrangle large numbers of them into the right position/formation or worry so much about choke points. But since they can't beat T3 armies on their own, if your opponent has a large T3 force you have to either build T3 units of your own to go with any T4s you might have, or send your T4s where his army is not.

My "specific solution" would be to think of T4s and T3s the same way one thinks of T3s at the T2 stage. No one argues that T2 and T3 should be distinctly separate "stages" of the game, where you're largely done with T2s when the T3s hit the field. It is quite common for players to suggest things like mixing a few Harbingers or Loyalists in with a T2 army, pushing out some T3 mobile arty to break that firebase for your T2 force, etc. Experimentals should be thought of the same way - not something separate and above the other tech levels, but just the next step up in unit abilities, something you add to your army, not an army in and of itself.

As far as specific balancing ideas, that would depend on the T4 in question. But I wouldn't be the one to ask about that anyway...

CopyyyCattt wrote:
And yes i think that aside fomr their oooomph (omgzors huge units) they are pretty boring. They cant be microed to evade shots(almost).They jsut march in.
Playing with groups of units or mixed forces is much more fun than spamming brute force XPs at the enemy...

Well sure, that's definitely true! But large formations and most T3 units can't be microed at that level either (certainly not bricks/percivals) and if experimentals are not made so powerful that they can take on their weight in T3 then players will actually be encouraged to mix them, instead of just spamming them alone. There's no need to make them weaker.

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 18 Jul 2013, 17:54

Re: A thought about T4

2013-07-18T16:58:57+02:00

So what is their point? what is the role if not line breakers?You tell me.
Don't just tell me they shouldn't be for defense breaking.
Tell me what than their role within the balance should be.
Should they just be the ultimate cost efficiency units? better for cost than any other units?
Should they be glass cannon? Needing support and someone else to tank for them while they do massive damage?
What role would you prescribe to them if you disagree with my proposition?

You say balanced in such a way so that a player owuld need ot use them as part of a larger force..OK..How would that happen?
Make them buff units around them somehow but make their stats lower in general?Give a specific solution to their role in the balance.

And yes i think that aside fomr their oooomph (omgzors huge units) they are pretty boring. They cant be microed to evade shots(almost).They jsut march in.
Playing with groups of units or mixed forces is much more fun than spamming brute force XPs at the enemy...

Statistics: Posted by CopyyyCattt — 18 Jul 2013, 16:58

Re: A thought about T4

2013-07-18T06:54:35+02:00

CopyyyCattt wrote:
They are not fun units..You just send them in.
T3 and especially t2 are much more interesting tech tiers...
nerf the viability of XPs they should appear in less games.

I don't think this is accurate. The only reason that XPs seem the way you describe is because at T4 for all factions combined there are a total of fifteen units to choose from. T2 and T3 have many more unit choices, UEF alone has what, over thirty units to choose from at T2 alone?

The choice of what units to build and where and how to deploy them in what combinations is what makes SupCom a fun and interesting game. Following that reasoning, T4s should not be meant primarily as rarely-seen 'line-breakers' that have such high costs you wouldn't see them and an army at the same time. Balancing them that way causes them to be "not fun units" where all you can do is "just send them in." If you balance them such that a player is encouraged to use them as part of a larger force they are much more interesting.

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 18 Jul 2013, 06:54

Re: A thought about T4

2013-07-18T06:00:37+02:00

First decide what you want the XPs to be...If T3 should be better for cost why make XPs? only thing to do is make them they into defense breakers...nothing more...They should be the units you get when t3 cant get past the defense..At super late game which most games should not get to...T4 should be rare.
They are not fun units..You just send them in.
T3 and especially t2 are much more interesting tech tiers...
nerf the viability of XPs they should appear in less games.

Statistics: Posted by CopyyyCattt — 18 Jul 2013, 06:00

Re: A thought about T4

2013-07-01T02:31:08+02:00

" I.E. And purely air player can make a colossus despite not making a single land fac while the other player has to tech up twice. "
What I am suggesting means that "a purely air player" would not even come close to finishing an experimental before being overrun by every kind of t1 t2 and t3 units .
My suggestion implies the player building the colossus has pretty much dominated a significant part of the battlefield for a long time.
It also implies that he/she probably has the good habit of cooperating with the allies, because building an exp would stall the economy so badly ,he/she would hardly think building it alone!

Statistics: Posted by prodromos — 01 Jul 2013, 02:31

Re: A thought about T4

2013-07-01T01:33:41+02:00

"I think he is pissed because his colossus got killed by 50 bricks?"
"re you nuts? That's more than double the mass in bricks vs the colossus. T4 should lose head to head to the equivalent counter in t3 units worth of mass due to units being much harder to manage and build up to than t3 units.
T4 isn't supposed to be the 'I win button' It is a single unit with the firepower of many single units and acts as a economy drain."

I couldn't be pissed about such thing because Aeon is not my race.
I brought it as an example, i.e. a colossus should not only be as powerful as 50 bricks, it should also be that much expensive.
I absolutely agree that T4 should not be an "i win button" and be of about equivalent cost as x amount of t3 units.
What "I am trying to tell you" is give t4 a distinct place at the very end of the game, and give t3 more air to breathe.
If this is done correctly(ie balanced and not as many of you fear about op exps; I wouldn't for the life of me want such an abomination as a unit that is unstoppable), I feel it would give the exps the sense of grandeur and epicness they have lost since vanilla supcom. I may be wrong, but you never know if you don't try first. Anyway, part of my motivation to speak about this is supcom2 and its frail exps; having an awesome-looking but worthless unit early in the game is not the right way to do it. I feel the new patch especially with the engie redesign is close to my way of thinking, as well as correcting the bug of the bombers early in faf. If the transports could also be changed, so that they could endure a little longer, or load and unload a little quicker, it would allow for some very interesting strategies.

Statistics: Posted by prodromos — 01 Jul 2013, 01:33

Re: A thought about T4

2013-06-30T05:13:03+02:00

prodromos wrote:
50 bricks to bring down a colossus

Are you nuts? That's more than double the mass in bricks vs the colossus. T4 should lose head to head to the equivalent counter in t3 units worth of mass due to units being much harder to manage and build up to than t3 units. I.E. And purely air player can make a colossus despite not making a single land fac while the other player has to tech up twice. T4 isn't supposed to be the 'I win button' It is a single unit with the firepower of many single units and acts as a economy drain.

Statistics: Posted by Ato0theJ — 30 Jun 2013, 05:13

Re: A thought about T4

2013-06-30T00:02:30+02:00

I think he is pissed because his colossus got killed by 50 bricks?

Statistics: Posted by da_monstr — 30 Jun 2013, 00:02

Re: A thought about T4

2013-06-29T23:41:45+02:00

what exactly do you want to tell us?

Statistics: Posted by ColonelSheppard — 29 Jun 2013, 23:41

Re: A thought about T4

2013-06-29T23:36:34+02:00

Forgive my tone, it's most probable that exps as they stand right now are harmoniously mixed with other units and well enough balanced. What I am proposing is based on an idea, a vision if you like, but the technical details of applying it, would probably require extensive testing.(i.e. I wouldn't trade a proven functioning order with an untested one).

It seems, I am a purist; to me exps should mainly be countered by other exps(but not only), because in the t4 stage it would be more elegant to build your own exp-counter, than the equivalent of a t4 in t3 army(i.e. 50 bricks to bring down a colossus). So the whole idea about seriously buffed t4, is the de facto creation of a distinct t4 stage; difficult to reach, but rewarding when you make it.

Statistics: Posted by prodromos — 29 Jun 2013, 23:36