Forged Alliance Forever

Re: T2 Bomber Suggestion

2015-11-26T14:20:15+02:00

I had some more games meanwhile and i decided one of my suggested ways is wrong. To make the t2 planes to better fighters is simply useless. A rush bomber is always protected by several asf and they clean the sky anyways. The person with the t3 bomber will definately get air superiority. The job of t2 bombers would be to prevent or damage him seriously for rushing to t3. Means that they should be able to fight a bit air and bomb him. In fact they are already good for this like they are maybe just need a small buff in general cost/built time reduction. The more impostant thing is that the t3 bombers should not be able to kill the acus so easy. A shield is granting just a bit of protection since you cant damage them they will kill you anyways. Here comes the t2 stationary aa buff again. This provides the ability to damage a t3 bomber serious and scare it away. Bomber would be still able to kill several mexes and energy but not have so easy game to kill any acu if you can selective protect small area. My tests to make all t2 stationary aa guns to sera t3 sams with lower range (simply t2 gun range) and dps (150 dps) and splash (1,5like sam) worked out fine in all tests.

Statistics: Posted by Iszh — 26 Nov 2015, 14:20

Re: T2 Bomber Suggestion

2015-11-12T10:45:08+02:00

Just for the sake of testing the different possibilities i offered Iszh air improvement v2 in mod vault. I changed 12 units.

4 t2 stationary aa guns are now sera sams with t2 range and t2 dps
4 t3 sams are the same with the splash of former t2 guns range 3

For fighter bombers i made the different possibilities for different factions.

1st Sera t2 bomber is a BOMBER now, it costs 250 mass has a 360° aa turret with 24 dps speed increased a bit other values same
2nd UEF t2 bomber is a modern multirole plane 250 mass swift wind copy with t1 bomber damage very fast and deadly for engis with this abilities
3rd Cybran bomber is what other people wanted it stayed a big thing 420 mass changed was only mini speed increase to reach t3 bombers and aa dps to 265 for beeing able to do serious damage to t3 planes for its cost. vs t1 it is same 2 shots as before others did. (according to lowest hp intie cybran the damage of 1 rocket salvo is a bit less damage)

Result should be for teamgames that it is possible to stop a t3 bomber rush better with t2 stationary guns and shields. No t1 aa spam needed. Air player has cheaper/stronger planes to harm enemy air player before reaching t3. Those small changes will change gameplay on teammaps with airplayer a lot i beleave. Without air player i doubt it will change the game a lot. But i anyway suppose nobody is eager to test this . Maybe if i have time i will try to make 1 or 2 games ...

Edit: Additional info why and how stat aa guns changed
t2 aa guns should be able to harm t3 planes to stop so easy t3 snipes
t3 aa guns should prevent 50+ bomber snipes better with splash (or at leaswt make it more difficult)

Statistics: Posted by Iszh — 12 Nov 2015, 10:45

Re: T2 Bomber Suggestion

2015-11-04T23:56:43+02:00

Iszh wrote:
#4040482

I looked at the replay and im not sure.
1st i d say he missplayed hard! he overflew power while he build 2nd pgen=> ras power... and the he ecoed hard instead of rushing t3 air. when you had the strat he had 15 mps more than you! he shouldve had at least 3 asf at that point... (AND reclaimed t2 power!!) and then he also build t3 engies => sams 2 l8. That his team was loosing wasnt (as far as i saw) related 2 you winning air. and even after he build the sams air eco was roughly even => no hard stomp he couldve maybe even used trans 2 get t3 engies 2 allies 2 help then.
I would not say this replay is a good example 4 t3 air opnes.
whereas i also saw many games where teams recovered well from early t3 bombing.

Statistics: Posted by Turinturambar — 04 Nov 2015, 23:56

Re: T2 Bomber Suggestion

2015-11-04T13:23:35+02:00

You should not forget about that there can be different rush tactics for example t3 acu drop done by t2 transports. You wont be able to stop that anymore. Stealth can be scouted anytime if not thats your mistake and you lose. High hp you cant avoid so easy you need inties. In teamgame it might be difficult if the whole enemy team is doing t1 air for suporting a drop to stop this.

I ve been talking to Ithilis and he had a really good idea instead of t2 transport to make t1 transport with high e cost stealth the t3 transport for all factions. You cant do acu drops but transport all tech level units. Low capacity. 500e cost will prevent that you will rush this to early. So if you imagine t1 transport with stealth for 500e that would be for balance times better. in t2 stage you could do either big drop with t2 or mini stealth drops. While for unit ferry you can use in lategame hidden t1 transports. Higher hp or something else is making things like sparky drop and acu drop to strong.

Statistics: Posted by Iszh — 04 Nov 2015, 13:23

Re: T2 Bomber Suggestion

2015-11-04T12:53:14+02:00

All good points.

I merely decided that overall the key issue with transports at t2 is the lack of hp which makes them very vulnerable to asf. So I went with hp, +1 speed and guns that aren't purely decorative.

The higher cost makes my transports a high reward target but at least gambling on them has a better chance of success. You could always add stealth to my transports if they were found to be underpowered and given the weaponry changes I've made to make each feel racially unique I doubt people would have a problem if a stealth buff was needed

There's always a chance of making them too good however, good balancing of the numbers after serial testing should address this.

Statistics: Posted by Korbah — 04 Nov 2015, 12:53

Re: T2 Bomber Suggestion

2015-11-04T12:07:28+02:00

About stleath i have to disagree, every faction has stealth, 2 factions have jamming, 2 factions have invisibilty.

Jamming: UEF - t3 gunship cybran
Invisibilty: Cybran - t1 scout sera
Stealth: everybody has a stealth generator - t2 transport planes are not a unit for faction diversity but a essential unit which is the same for all factions with mini differences for capacity. The possibility to add stealth for cybran is insane strong and only underused for the same reason like ghetto gunships. To much effort. A integrated stealth for all would be nice. For creating faction difference her you can add bigger stealth radius to cybran transport so you can hide t1 planes and t2 planes maybe other t2 transports as well to save e under it where other factions can only hide the loaded units and the plane.

The opinion faction diversity is stealth to cybran jamming to uef and nano for sera is wrong. I am afraid to buff t2 transport with other values speed or something else could make it to strong. With t3 trans the risk is smaller because you can regulate the mass cost much more it is a not essential unit.

Statistics: Posted by Iszh — 04 Nov 2015, 12:07

Re: T2 Bomber Suggestion

2015-11-04T11:16:25+02:00

Iszh wrote:
Add stealth field to t2 transport planes maintenance cost 500e default switched off.

I considered this but decided to leave cybrans with stealth. I instead made t2/3 transports tougher, slightly faster, improved their weapons and recosted accordingly.

Iszh wrote:
I like your mod korbah. I simply have not enough of time per day to really wait for a lobby to fill and so i use my few minutes for normal teamgames. I would even make a mod myself again with my proposed changes but i do not have the time.

This is a fair comment - it is harder to get games whilst playing a mod. However, I've still been able to get several games each night this week without too much issue.

Iszh wrote:
For raiding very nice. with t3 transport there is no real use for it especially if you buff t2 transports. Since uef has no flying exp why not to make it a half exp like salvation.

With more expensive ASF (ie. fewer) and a re-costed tougher T3 transport as mentioned above - the UEF t3 transport becomes a very scary beast indeed with frontal assault drops becoming a very real possibility.

Iszh wrote:
No idea how our "mod changes" could be tested effective. I think the result will simply be zock will decide some things together with council which will be far not so spectacular and offer in a beta and all this talks here are the desperate hope to influence on this

It's pretty straight forward. Start getting people to test a mod. Post replays. Do iterative improvements of the mod as the understanding of the changes and balance improves. As the mod's quality increases momentum will build behind it. The idea is to deliver to the balance team a air mod that can be dropped directly into the next balance patch - zock has loads of stuff to work on, us helping by providing a working solution to air issues is going to let him focus on other issues.

Statistics: Posted by Korbah — 04 Nov 2015, 11:16

Re: T2 Bomber Suggestion

2015-11-04T11:06:20+02:00

Yes thats nice i forgot one of the main weapons of air player could be transports as well. We already had this discussion that t2 transports cant be used in late game anymore. I personally cant see any other option except adding e expensive stealth to them. In case of our air player example that would lead to times more sneaky transport tank/engi/sparky attacks. you could finally create stable ferry routes in late game out of range of enemy omni. Fix is in fact 5 minutes of modding

Add stealth field to t2 transport planes maintenance cost 500e default switched off.

I like your mod korbah. I simply have not enough of time per day to really wait for a lobby to fill and so i use my few minutes for normal teamgames. I would even make a mod myself again with my proposed changes but i do not have the time.

And also would like to mod my toy ideas i can understand if nobody supporting them i know myself that they are fun ideas people of other factions would not like to face them like rocket titan and half exp t3 transport. But there are real reasons for this i can explain. Loyalist has emp and tmd titan has nothing with rockets you could do a second mongoose with low range. it would have half dps splash half plasma gun. For raiding very nice. with t3 transport there is no real use for it especially if you buff t2 transports. Since uef has no flying exp why not to make it a half exp like salvation.
I should do a uef mod in new year holidays there i could add those t2 and static aa changes again. In my balancemod i changed t3 land a bit that was stupid. But in general nobody likes to play balance mods. Ithilis mod i played one time and the problem with it is he changed simply to much things which change the basic feeling of the game to much. Things they have been nearly same for nearly 8 years now. I got an air factory first which is not possible in his mod that was enough for me to say gg no re i am sorry dont want to learn a new game in my little time i have for playing.
No idea how our "mod changes" could be tested effective. I think the result will simply be zock will decide some things together with council which will be far not so spectacular and offer in a beta and all this talks here are the desperate hope to influence on this

Statistics: Posted by Iszh — 04 Nov 2015, 11:06

Re: T2 Bomber Suggestion

2015-11-04T10:49:21+02:00

Iszh wrote:
The problems i ve seen are basically two:

1.) Air players cant really be disturbed while teching since t1 aa can be spammed easy with lots of engis and will grant a 99% safety from t1 and t2 air. Rushing t2 air will lead to a lose since you cant harm the enemy player enough and will fall behind -> gg.

2.) There is no way to defend vs t3 air except you have t3 yourself. Definition of defend means to be able to shoot those bombers and not only scare them away because they will simply fly to a weaker enemy and kill him easy -> gg.

.....

And of course if somebody can offer me a better solution to solve the problem which is shown in this replay i am happy to get a suggestion.

1) make transports in T2 dangerous (ie. able to reliably make ballsy drops). It means that an unprotected tech to t3 could be a game ending mistake with a smart T2 drop.

2) Soft countering T3 w/ T2 air and static T2 flak. If T3 is appropriately costed then the ramp up to critical mass of units will be able to be weathered by a committed T2 air player until they have their own T3 at a reasonable time.

I've addressed both these points in Air Leverage v5 which I invite you to trial and offer thoughts/criticisms

Statistics: Posted by Korbah — 04 Nov 2015, 10:49

Re: T2 Bomber Suggestion

2015-11-04T10:51:00+02:00

Just wanted to remember what was the problem with air. Here in this replay you can see the problem like nowhere else. #4040482 two nearly equal air players meet each other. they have same time results more or less for building ras and air fac. One of them is a few seconds to late with asf --> gg. I understand that 1v1 players here will cry again thats not our problem and they are right, but teamgames with dedicated air positions are part of this game and since it seems to be not working as smooth as it should be there is a problem with air no matter if it influences 1v1 or not.

The problems i ve seen are basically two:

1.) Air players cant really be disturbed while teching since t1 aa can be spammed easy with lots of engis and will grant a 99% safety from t1 and t2 air. Rushing t2 air will lead to a lose since you cant harm the enemy player enough and will fall behind -> gg.

2.) There is no way to defend vs t3 air except you have t3 yourself. Definition of defend means to be able to shoot those bombers and not only scare them away because they will simply fly to a weaker enemy and kill him easy -> gg.

My suggestion was to fulfil the logic system alike land t1t2 and t2>t3 to protect from rush. Zock noticed that the t2>t3 land is already broken because it is nearly impossible with t2 units to kill a t3 harb rush if the t2 units are not called ilshavoh. With air it is even more extreme since only aeon has a t2 aa fighter which is needed to kill a t3 bomber. They dont have good t2 planes to harm enemy air player as well. Ground aa guns do not exist which can serious harm a t3 bomber. You can spam t1 aa guns and shields. I thought to create the ability to have more t2 aa planes with light ground better aa dps and speed damage would at least make all factions able to fight a t3 bomber. They will of course not win because the bomber is protected by early asf spam. Here the second thing which is needed and will again solve 2 problems at once. Buff t2 stationary aa and t3 sam. t2 stat aa will have small splash and basically be t3 sera sam with lower dps and range. they can hit and scare asf and if the ground guy has a shield he can survive and scare the asf and kill the bomber with t2 planes and the aa guns. If you want to nerf t3 bomber that it cant win the game you will have to nerf it to much and make it useless ... the sam buff would include a big splash for sam which had the t2 aa before to protect better from big bomber snipes and scare asf clouds more efficient and be able to fight gunships. On t2 stage you still have mobile t2 aa for splash.

1.) buffing t2 air planes
-be able to shoot a t3 bomber with speed and mass cost effective
-be able to disturb enemy air player while teching

2.) buffing t2 and t3 stationary aa
-t2 is able to hurt a t3 bomber mass effective with every shot but doesnt become op and killt it in one pass. Even with four of such guns it would manage a second drop
-t3 is able to prevent easy air snipes and is much better vs t3 air

Side effect is that the improved t2 stationary aa would be also good and stop the t1/t2 bombers better than t1 aa and remove this weird t1 aa spam. For 1v1 games that would also be an improvement, t2 air would be more important. in lots of 1v1 games 1700+ i watch sometimes lots of them replays there is used only t1 air and maybe t2 gunships sometimes protected by t1 air. Except gunships and desperate torpedo bombers vs navy you can hardly see t2 air even in 1v1 games. To change the t2 planes would also bring more variety to 1v1. So far nobody has given me really a serious offer how to solve it on a different way without nefing t3 to death. i Kow i am repeating what i told before but always in a different way (maybe better overview) in the hope sombody will be convinced finally

And of course if somebody can offer me a better solution to solve the problem which is shown in this replay i am happy to get a suggestion.

Statistics: Posted by Iszh — 04 Nov 2015, 09:49

Re: T2 Bomber Suggestion

2015-10-31T00:53:25+02:00

Exotic_Retard wrote:
Ithilis_Quo wrote:things i can confirm, and
"f*** YOU" SEKELFRAER
this... : D : D

without a doubt the most fantastic review ever witnessed

But maybe it was secter language with a message:

Whoo know..

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 31 Oct 2015, 00:53

Re: T2 Bomber Suggestion

2015-10-31T00:30:17+02:00

Ithilis_Quo wrote:
things i can confirm, and
"f*** YOU" SEKELFRAER

this... : D : D

without a doubt the most fantastic review ever witnessed

Statistics: Posted by Exotic_Retard — 31 Oct 2015, 00:30

Re: T2 Bomber Suggestion

2015-10-30T23:50:37+02:00

yeager wrote:
Ithilis, balance is about slow steady change to find out what works and what doesn't, not just cram every idea you have ever had into 1 mod while taking all faction diversity and making it a "take it or leave"
no one can actually work out your mod cause you have to relearn a lot of the game, and if you don't like something then that sucks, cause you won't budge, but would rather insult the guys being reasonable like Iszh here

At first im not insulting Iszh. Im insulting folks that cry on 18 pages about how its not working and why none do something with it. Iszh was do something with it. Maybe its not ideal, its different as what i was do with it, but it doesnt matther, and mean that its bad, its 4x better as it actual. And did you know how many people play iszh fix ? I know 0.

At second when i start moding, i make multiple mods that was focus only on single thinks that was try to make game better (hover rework, cancer fix, submarine warfare), similar as iszh with t2 air. Did you know how many people play it? I know 4 (me tokyto, retard, rumadai). So i throu this idea and make this game that good as i can. And did you know how many play it? I dont, but its more as when it was separete.

At three Faction diversity in my mod is deeper as in standard, onece i was desribe you it on very long post, i will dont repeat it for you when you ignore it. In normal is most deep faction diversity on serafin, that are diverse because suck at t3 extremly hard every time.

at four From one time where people start pising in forum, how its "total different game" and need relearn whole game i star ask people after game, what they found as different. Already have about 10 screnshot where people for this simply question give me answers:
"i saw that its with mod, but forgot about it, what is different?" jacktequila
"no i didnt notice" Capitainchlorgas
"no, i had a bit more power maybe.. i didnt realize but i dont have a keen eye on these kinds of things yet" ThermoNuc
"except a power stal at the start.. and yes changed mantis icon, its good change" JaggedAppliance
"what was this balance change, i didnt notice" SpdyGonzales
"hmm not realy" EcoGuy
"I watched the replays (what i send him), jast a normal game in my eyes, you dont change enought to have a mod author avatar" Voodoo
"f*** YOU" SEKELFRAER

especialy voodoo was interesting, i was need convice him for 4 days that its real mod that change something and give me mod author avatar, after watching 2 replays where bouth was more as half hour long he didnt notice taht something is diferent. Voodoo, master player.... ..And 8/10 others player that realy play it and mostly not realize. Thats is.

at fifthly When was rumadai complain about energy cost that make him unhappy, i resetup a lot of units to make it more pleasure for him. When sheeo was change cybran tml and say me that its better i change it, becasue its better, when apofenas was complaining about range bots i spend 4 days working on range bots to make them better, when exotic retard say me that some of my change is retarded, then i change it and dont care when it cost me week of work. Already Icedreamer make veterancy mod, that its based on my system, and when he finish it i integrate it, becasue its better. What did you say that its bad and should be better? Give me arguments and it would be real, tomorow, not after 3 mounth (when you are lucky) So dont talk trash about how "I won't budge"

At sixtly None here test this game as i, no-one. I multiple test from every parspecite to found what is work, and what not. and integrate only that what is working. Im not guesing, im testing. This is also reason why this discusion is so hard pointless, becasue here nearly none test what they are talking about.

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 30 Oct 2015, 23:50

Re: T2 Bomber Suggestion

2015-10-30T22:26:02+02:00

Ithilis, balance is about slow steady change to find out what works and what doesn't, not just cram every idea you have ever had into 1 mod while taking all faction diversity and making it a "take it or leave"
no one can actually work out your mod cause you have to relearn a lot of the game, and if you don't like something then that sucks, cause you won't budge, but would rather insult the guys being reasonable like Iszh here

Statistics: Posted by yeager — 30 Oct 2015, 22:26

Re: T2 Bomber Suggestion

2015-10-29T23:14:26+02:00

I only made suggestions for a beta maybe a speed increase is just enough might be true

I simply tried to watch it from all side possible and bring in all possible idea here which could be helpful. And in fact it is true watching those bombers that the aa gun if completely useless and it is overpriced atm for its use. Speed increase for example would buff anti ground and anti air abilities together maybe then it is worth its cost. Just atm it is not.

Statistics: Posted by Iszh — 29 Oct 2015, 23:14