Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Making the game more aggressive and varied.

2013-08-10T17:24:41+02:00

So GPG got it perfect?
Wreckage gets destroyed in TA/TA like games that actually have wreckage.This is not new.

Statistics: Posted by CopyyyCattt — 10 Aug 2013, 17:24

Re: Making the game more aggressive and varied.

2013-08-10T07:11:09+02:00

Wrecks are 81% mass when there is no overkill damages, but more often than not, you get only half of it, or even nothing at all. If you get half of 81% of the mass cost of a mantis, it's not that high. Many times, units are completely destroyed, living nothing. So the starting high value is not constant.

Besides, reclaiming of wrecks allows comebacks in the game. If there was no possibility to reclaim wrecks, or at a negligible level, games would be even more often decided by the first person who loses 2 engineers in early game. Also, wrecks fields make good strategic objectives, making each game on a same map slightly different (need to adapat eco management to dynamic reclaiming), it's not just about making perfect bo with no variation on a given map. It's also possible to prevent your opponent to reclaim by constantly applying pressure, killing his engies, and overflowing him with units (ask Blackheart to show you). If reclaims were too low, it would be easy to just overspam your opponent and he would not be able to do anything.

Naval wrecks have been much more problematic issue, because of the high cost of naval units but also precisely because the sinking animation makes the wrecks appear later, thus the wrecks are generally less damaged by overkill shots. For this reason, in FAF, they give 40% of original unit mass cost.

Statistics: Posted by pip — 10 Aug 2013, 07:11

Re: Making the game more aggressive and varied.

2013-08-10T05:13:47+02:00

Reclaim is 81% not 85%..

Statistics: Posted by SC-Account — 10 Aug 2013, 05:13

Re: Making the game more aggressive and varied.

2013-08-09T16:23:06+02:00

I think reclaim is one of the ideas which CopyCat got right here. I take issue with the others, but, my gutt feel is that reclaim has always been set a little too high in this game. Mind you. I am specifically talking about wreckage reclaim. Not the natural reclaim of rocks and trees.

The values for wreckage reclaim ought to be more purposefully set out. It is one of those dials that as you turn up and down, have a significant imact on the economy and on gameplay. If you turn the dial down a bit, it gives sufficient reward to the defender to stay in the game. But not too much of a reward that an attacker is discouraged from attacking. I would not go as low as CopyCat. But I would say a figure between 65% and 75% would be enough... You must remember that wreckage is destructable by AoE weapons. So actual recovery is already less than 85%.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 09 Aug 2013, 16:23

Re: Making the game more aggressive and varied.

2013-08-09T14:50:15+02:00

sjoOof wrote:
@reclaim
I think the reason why reclaim is so high is the exponential nature of the economy. We need to adress the adjacency of mass storage and get a closer to linear economy before decreasing the reclaim or adjusting the mass fabricators.

This is if you think GPG devs were planing it all and figuring it all out before making these values.
My guess would be that process was much more lighthearted.
They just decided on 85% cause they felt like it.
Whats the connection? Reclaim amounts depends on the economy. The more mass the more units you make and lose and the more wreckage you got.
Reducing Wreckage values by a % will not change this connection in any way.

Statistics: Posted by CopyyyCattt — 09 Aug 2013, 14:50

Re: Making the game more aggressive and varied.

2013-08-09T08:35:58+02:00

CopyyyCattt wrote:
5)Anti Air.
ATM T3 air is a must and can go and do anything, the only counter is more T3 air..
This limits the game possibilities and IMO should be tweaked.

Please reconsider this for 1vs1:

lets say you build t2+t3 Air HQ Upgrade and 12 ASF
840+4090+ 12x350 = 9130

i build in the meantime
t3 land HQ upgrade and 4 Percis
or 3 perices and 1x t3 m.arty and 2 m.shield
4090 + 4 x 1280
4090 + 3 x 1280 + 800 + 2x120

for every t2 or t3 air to ground bomber or gunschip you build i can build some aa and a shield.

so there is actually a time slot where you are very vulnerable because you cannot counter the ground offensive. After that you propably will cripple my eco or go for my ACU with you air supierority but that could be to late!

Statistics: Posted by RoLa — 09 Aug 2013, 08:35

Re: Making the game more aggressive and varied.

2013-08-09T08:32:29+02:00

@reclaim
I think the reason why reclaim is so high is the exponential nature of the economy. We need to adress the adjacency of mass storage and get a closer to linear economy before decreasing the reclaim or adjusting the mass fabricators.

Statistics: Posted by sjoOof — 09 Aug 2013, 08:32

Re: Making the game more aggressive and varied.

2013-08-09T07:43:13+02:00

1) If the alt + right click doesn't work as anticipated, don't use it for that purpose. Try telling arty to guard your tanks, and set tanks to attack move. Send scouts to find fortifications, and use manual attack.

2) Wreckage values are a topic for discussion. I had always thought that 85% reclaim value was a tad high. Natural reclaimables are fine, but the yield for wreckage should be more like 65% or 75%. Which would actually make the rebuild feature a bit more meaningful. (Where rebuilding gives 50% mass, 50% energy and 50% build time). Bringing reclaim down a bit would encourage rebuilding more.

3) Gunships are fine. They do good damage to ground and they die to their intended counters. The thing about air combat is it is high paced, and things happen quickly. So spamming interceptors or ASF is a bit like spamming submarines in a naval fight. An airforce composed of AA has no ability to influence the ground battle. T1 gunships are best early, or when there is no AA in the area. They are best used on kill missions in isolated areas, when your opponent is not paying attention. They can also be used as a "911 force" inside your airspace to deal with raiders.

4) Mass fabs are fine. They are what they should be. Expensive and marginaly viable. The T2 variant is needed for that emergency scenario where my map control is critically short, or I have some early power to burn. The T3 fab is useful in the super late game, where unit cap would screw with T2 fabs. If I have to click my mouse, It has to be for more than +1 mass.

5) Land AA is awesome, you should use it. It is by its nature a DEFENSIVE unit. It does not need to chase air. It just needs to keep up with the units which it is defending. T2 flak does AoE damage. Add some mobile shields and it will easily take down restorers. As for Strat bombers and ASF. I'm pretty sure T2/T3 shields and SAM's can adequately defend. A dedicated AA defence will stop T3 air, or at least keep them out of your airspace.

6) Which artillery are you talking about? There is nothing to add, we never had them.

Methinks you are judging units capabilities according to narrow mission parameters which you have defined for yourself. Try to think of what units are good at, and use them that way instead.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 09 Aug 2013, 07:43

Re: Making the game more aggressive and varied.

2013-08-09T00:38:28+02:00

Turtling is more effective when you can defend and reclaim more wreckage after an attack!
Higher wreckage values mean a defended line would get more wreckage as its being attacked to try and erode it.

I dont know what games you are basing your assumptions on.Look at SC.It has no reclaim whic hmeans when you attack anywhere what matters is how much more resources you managed ot kill than the amount you lost in units...You can attack anywhere since you do not need to be afraid of leaving wreckage...The game becomes more agressive with less wreckage value not the other way around.

Making the mavor a t3 unit does not mean the game is more porcy. There are many ways to balance it. You can have each shot cost E or have it requiring E to work...The unit can be balanced in such a way as to not promote porc(defense)..
It will of course have to be nerfed a lot to match a more humble cost.
It is a very cool concept.A Stationary defense being able to shoot through the entire map or a big part of it.
It was fine in TA, It was fine in spring, there is no reason why it cant be fine in FA.
It is just a shame to have such a cool building almost never be used.

If AA did its job you would often see games without Fighters.ATM fighters are a must in 99% of games, making static AA niche units and making gunships less useful.

Stop addressing me like im some noob who doesn't like a unit so wants it to be nerfed or removed, I dont appreciate that.
I like gunships Its just clear the balance ATM pushes them out to the fringe.
Gunships are air units meant to primarily deal with ground forces, so are bombers, so whats the difference? the difference is in the way the move as they attack.
Gunships do not need a lot of space to attack making the more beneficial when the enemy has static AA.
Bombers are good when the enemy has fighters since it ca deal burst dmg and die.
When fighters dominate each game gunships get pushed out of the balance.They got no role.

Statistics: Posted by CopyyyCattt — 09 Aug 2013, 00:38

Re: Making the game more aggressive and varied.

2013-08-08T22:58:26+02:00

TA clones != SupCom FA. Please stop trying to turn this into a spring RTS. We all love our game The reclaim values are fine, and do not need to be changed. Making it less valuable would make map control and mobility less important and turtling more effective (the opposite of what you say you want).

The Jester is a totally unique and very powerful unit... your assumption that it is a noob trap simply means that you can't use it correctly. Please don't think that because you don't like/use a unit it needs to be taken out.

Balancing mass fabs with mex is a HORRIBLE idea based on your premise. If they were balanced there would be no reason to ever expand, because you can just as easily get resources by staying in base. At the same time, current values are ok as if you MUST get more eco and all mex that are viable are claimed you can still build fab farms.

As for the AA, all tiers do their jobs and do them well.... if you can't see that I can't help you.

Again, going back to your premise of making the game more aggressive, making t3 and t4 arty more viable would make this game stupidly turtle oriented. The values set now are great, as they take a long time to build and are only viable on either large maps or in long games to break stalemates.

My two cents, take them as you will.

Statistics: Posted by BRNKoINSANITY — 08 Aug 2013, 22:58

Re: Making the game more aggressive and varied.

2013-08-08T19:59:04+02:00

ZaphodX wrote:
Current reclaim has worked fine. Where are your replays showing how it needs to be nerfed?

It just makes sense. I have seen wreckage values it in other TA clones(all much lower).
Think about it.
85% means that you must be amazingly efficient with unit control compared to your enemy(much easier for a good player to just outeco such an outclassed opponent). You can't just be somewhat better with unit control, you have to be much much better to be able to harass, not get the wreckage and still come on top.
Lower wreckage values will keep wreckage important while making it a bit easier to outplay your enemy with better unit maneuvering and harass.

Statistics: Posted by CopyyyCattt — 08 Aug 2013, 19:59

Re: Making the game more aggressive and varied.

2013-08-08T14:35:53+02:00

I agree with artillery issue

Statistics: Posted by Bliss — 08 Aug 2013, 14:35

Re: Making the game more aggressive and varied.

2013-08-08T14:22:32+02:00

Current reclaim has worked fine. Where are your replays showing how it needs to be nerfed?

Statistics: Posted by ZaphodX — 08 Aug 2013, 14:22

Re: Making the game more aggressive and varied.

2013-08-08T14:02:35+02:00

My poitn was that The wreck values were set too high..85% is just the default GPG. They made many mistakes that the FA community is correcting to improve gameplay and balance. I'm saying wreck valeus were set too high and decreasing them a bit will improve gameplay. It's nothing radical just instead of 85% go down to 50%-60%.
Wreckage will still be as importatn.You will still have ot fight for it etc..Just more idke play with your units and just sitting amassing units witohut doing anything will be less effective comapred to someone who is more active with his forces.

Statistics: Posted by CopyyyCattt — 08 Aug 2013, 14:02

Re: Making the game more aggressive and varied.

2013-08-08T00:12:07+02:00

Why don't you harass for harassment sake? Within the name/action alone, you achieve numerous strategic elements. Namely free/cheap damage, chip some units and/or, bother the guy to disrupt concentration on something else.

You can't harass and not do these things.

You could further use a 'harass' as a feign but at that point, I wouldn't call it harassment, rather a feign. Alas, that's semantics.

To the point, he's (attempting) to say that harassment in such a matter (getting a few fringe kills) ultimately does more harm than good. Sure you can pick off a few units, but then unless you follow up with a full attack and claim ground -the enemy will reclaim them and use that new mass against you.

In my opinion, he's half right. But the enemy com could have always just reclaimed them for giggles at any point for the same affect (unless the values change which I'm not aware they do). Though it is annoying how much territory matters at times. Simply because a major battled ended in a draw near your base could me you win since you get the uncontested reclaim. Combined with general 'defenders advantage' makes for some cases where you can do 'everything right', but still lose.
Course the solution is to start thinking 'meta' and avoid those situations in the first place.

Statistics: Posted by errorblankfield — 08 Aug 2013, 00:12