Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Recommended adjustments

2013-06-14T17:01:06+02:00

No other faction or tiers have comparable units having the same price.

I like it. Faction deversity. As long as the units both have a viable role, i find it nice that the t2 of the factions is more different and not always the light/heavy tank dogma.

Statistics: Posted by Zock — 14 Jun 2013, 17:01

Re: Recommended adjustments

2013-06-14T16:30:26+02:00

If it's not imbalance, while I agree the whole thing could be better, it can be tested for 3 months and proposed for next patch with already tested values (it speed up the whole process greatly).

Changing it randomly now is probably not a good idea.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 14 Jun 2013, 16:30

Re: Recommended adjustments

2013-06-14T16:02:06+02:00

IMO, there is no problem with the balance of the new Rhino, nor with the balance of the Wagner (of course, it hasn't changed). But it's like aurora : the movement behaviour didn't make it op, it made it weird.

Wagner + Rhino as heavy tanks, for the same price, seems really weird to me. No other faction or tiers have comparable units having the same price. There is always a more expensive / cheaper unit, and a heavier one, for variety.

Of course it's impossible to provide replays proving that Wagner should not have same price as Rhino if Rhino becomes the heavy tank of Cybran, but I'm sure plenty of people will find it wrong that Cybran has 2 very similar units. It's not imba, but it's not optimal. Making Rhino heavier and more expensive is a very good idea, but leaving Wagner heavy and expensive = half done change.

Statistics: Posted by pip — 14 Jun 2013, 16:02

Re: Recommended adjustments

2013-06-14T15:06:57+02:00

Well, if I want to tweak the rhino/wagner, whatever, I don't see how as you don't even start to tell what the problem is supposed to be.

I don't see any from any replay posted here.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 14 Jun 2013, 15:06

Re: Recommended adjustments

2013-06-14T15:05:34+02:00

Do what you want.

Statistics: Posted by Lu_Xun_17 — 14 Jun 2013, 15:05

Re: Recommended adjustments

2013-06-14T15:00:53+02:00

Lu_Xun_17 wrote:
concerning aurora i've posted you some replays against blackheart few weeks ago to show you aurora was exactly like before (like before i mean excellent against spam but too weak against T1 air) except this buggy aspect.

There are not supposed to be better, they are supposed to react better. That's something you can't see/feel if you don't play aeon on a daily basis.
So you basically confirming that change was working as expected (meaning not more powerful).

This post was like an sos when reading that you wanted to publish 3626 like that, but the addition of new rhino target + new heavy rhino requieres again some new tests. It's not ready.

It will be pushed like that. If I'm waiting for your test, the patch will not be released this year.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 14 Jun 2013, 15:00

Re: Recommended adjustments

2013-06-14T14:59:30+02:00

Lu_Xun_17 wrote:
I know some of my values got listened to, but i think you should trust without replays when all the top5 get a same opinion about a unit.

I don't believe anyone can play a game inside his head, sorry. (also, you don't even all agree on the same things, so...).

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 14 Jun 2013, 14:59

Re: Recommended adjustments

2013-06-14T14:56:18+02:00

It's exactly in answer to the read of changelog topic that i've made this post zep...
I know i had to put a little of electricity in my previous post to make you react a minimum.
uef nano is nearly not an argue when we look at the senseless first values proposed.

I know some of my values got listened to, but i think you should trust without replays when all the top5 get a same opinion about a unit.

As i was not even sure you would watch those, here are some replays

999234-Lu_Xun_17.fafreplay
1000680-Lu_Xun_17.fafreplay
1000717-Lu_Xun_17.fafreplay

concerning aurora i've posted you some replays against blackheart few weeks ago to show you aurora was exactly like before (like before i mean excellent against spam but too weak against T1 air) except this buggy aspect.

This post was like an sos when reading that you wanted to publish 3626 like that, but the addition of new rhino target + new heavy rhino requieres again some new tests. It's not ready.

Statistics: Posted by Lu_Xun_17 — 14 Jun 2013, 14:56

Re: Recommended adjustments

2013-06-14T14:39:33+02:00

I posted replays of nano, and Zep changed it. All you need to do Luxy, is to provide a handful of replays showing how the cheap + high hp mobile shields are too strong (for t1 and t2 support, but more importantly navy support and t3 support). It should not be hard, and yet, unfortunately, after more than 3 weeks, not a single replay shows it clearly. I'm sure it's OP, but I'm also aware there is yet no real evidence it's OP. Play more!

Statistics: Posted by pip — 14 Jun 2013, 14:39

Re: Recommended adjustments

2013-06-14T14:31:39+02:00

Lu_Xun_17 wrote:
aurora turn speed is also a mistake. it doesn't buff well aurora and makes the unit looking bugged.

Read the changelog.

For shields, I fail to see any replay on this forum showing any shield abuse.

If you were reading the changelog before making any claim, you would see that I listen to anyone bringing some evidences to their claim (in the last one, the nano repair).
Also, half the changelogs are the values you gave me. I don't listen you said? (It's hard for me to listen to people saying nothing, that's true).

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 14 Jun 2013, 14:31

Re: Recommended adjustments

2013-06-14T14:25:58+02:00

from what i've seen and played, and as we already said since beginning of this beta patch, mobile shield buff is a mistake, and aurora turn speed is also a mistake. it doesn't buff well aurora and makes the unit looking bugged.

But anyway i still wonder why i'm writting here as the only person who takes the decisions doesn't care in opinions of others.

Statistics: Posted by Lu_Xun_17 — 14 Jun 2013, 14:25

Re: Recommended adjustments

2013-06-14T08:14:57+02:00

I don't longer think Obsidian's speed should be changed anymore, however, I think among all the buffs it recieved, changing the Health and Shield HP ratio is not necessary, because the energy upkeep was reduced a lot. Reverting this change would make Obsidians a bit less strong against t1 (less vet + more vulerability if there is an energy stalling due to Obsidian / mobile shield spam).

I still think it's wrong that Cybran has 2 heavy tanks, costing the same price and would prefer a cheaper Wagner (yet as strong).

As for Aeon mobile shield strength and possible abuse for navy, and late t2 / t3, I guess we will have to wait for 1v1 ladder feedback because a lot of replays are required to evaluate them and the handful I watched were not conclusive enough so far (even though snipers + cheap mobile shields spam is already used to great efficiency by some players).

Statistics: Posted by pip — 14 Jun 2013, 08:14

Re: Recommended adjustments

2013-06-13T13:38:00+02:00

he got 210 regen on 600-700 power, he can be shot by 2 ACUs constantly and his health will not decreace!
TOTAL IMBA REDUCE TO 100 regen at least or even less, i am not sure when i want this upgraide, and how make it usefull but not imba...

Statistics: Posted by ZLO_RD — 13 Jun 2013, 13:38

Re: Recommended adjustments

2013-06-13T13:34:15+02:00

pip wrote:
Here is a replay showing how imba is the current nano upgrade for UEF. Courtesy of Blackheart, whom I thank for his help. My apologies for the 5 ACU he killed. May they rest in peace.

Pentakill well would be nice if we were playing league of legend, but FA is not good. I ask attention because look I found this really OP. But several factors have to see, had maximum level veteran, shield and nano repair ...

Statistics: Posted by Neojacques — 13 Jun 2013, 13:34

Re: Recommended adjustments

2013-06-13T13:12:16+02:00

ZLO_RD wrote:
WTF? was that a balance testing replay with BlackHeart???

this was actually OP, i do not remember that you can upgraide that shit without 1-2 t2 power before...

It used to cost 200 000 energy, it's now 52500 with same regen, 200 hp / sec. So before, you needed t3, now you need just one t2 or even just t1 and a boost from you team mates. It's not the price that matters, but the regen value in relation to the price. For such high regen value, the previous price was correct, but it makes the upgrade useless due to the existence of shield upgrade. Hence the suggestions to reduce the price AND the regen value, not just the price.

Here is another replay where it is used and give the team who uses it a big advantage. If other replays are required, i'm sure there are a few available in the vault. It would be funny to see a team of 4 UEF players using nano with the current 200 hp / regen.

Statistics: Posted by pip — 13 Jun 2013, 13:12