Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Balance

2015-11-28T10:58:50+02:00

Rudolph'sRedNose wrote:
Considering people mostly play Gap of Rohan the game should really be balanced around it. Which leads nicely into my next point. Anti nuke range should be heavily nerfed, it easily covers two bases which is clearly ridiculous. Half the range, cover one base, make nukes more viable.

LOL good luck with that argument...

Statistics: Posted by KD7BCH — 28 Nov 2015, 10:58

Re: Balance

2015-11-28T07:04:52+02:00

BRNKoINSANITY wrote:
Then it must not work vs awhassa, because the t4 bomber still does it.

Works fine, the shield overlap is very reasonable, this game doesn't need to be more turtley
How about people stop randomly bringing up stupid balance changes, do some tests, show some evidence.

Statistics: Posted by Aulex — 28 Nov 2015, 07:04

Re: Balance

2015-11-28T03:55:21+02:00

Then it must not work vs awhassa, because the t4 bomber still does it.

Statistics: Posted by BRNKoINSANITY — 28 Nov 2015, 03:55

Re: Balance

2015-11-28T00:35:50+02:00

BRNKoINSANITY wrote:
I do think the shields need to be addressed, because currently damage is dealt beyond the capability of the weapon striking the shield.

For example, if you have 6 t3 seraphim shields and an awhassa dropps a bomb where the AOE spreads to all 6, then the 11,000 damage bomb does some 16,500 damage to each shield. 11,000 plus 1,100 overflow from each shield to the other 5. This really screws over bases because you are actually better off with one shield than 2-10. I think the mentality behind reducing shield effectiveness is probably a good one, but we need to rethink the damage transfer. It needs to be accomplished through slower regen or lower HP, or perhaps just simply nerfing the Bulwark by itself and leaving everything else alone.

The current shield overlap thingamajig actually checks if the attack hit multiple shields and disables the Damage Jesus Overspill

Statistics: Posted by zeroAPM — 28 Nov 2015, 00:35

Re: Balance

2015-11-27T23:32:12+02:00

I do think the shields need to be addressed, because currently damage is dealt beyond the capability of the weapon striking the shield.

For example, if you have 6 t3 seraphim shields and an awhassa dropps a bomb where the AOE spreads to all 6, then the 11,000 damage bomb does some 16,500 damage to each shield. 11,000 plus 1,100 overflow from each shield to the other 5. This really screws over bases because you are actually better off with one shield than 2-10. I think the mentality behind reducing shield effectiveness is probably a good one, but we need to rethink the damage transfer. It needs to be accomplished through slower regen or lower HP, or perhaps just simply nerfing the Bulwark by itself and leaving everything else alone.

Statistics: Posted by BRNKoINSANITY — 27 Nov 2015, 23:32

Re: Balance

2015-11-27T22:21:50+02:00

BRNKoINSANITY wrote:
The reason t3 arty is so much stronger than it used to be is that the shields were nerfed. With the transfer damage introduced about 2 years back, shields now have a really hard time standing up to t3 arty. The nerf was introduced to lessen the impact of firebase creeps, since shields would fail quicker, and to prevent "invincible" late game bases and t3 UEF navy. Instead of discussing a ton of different units and abilities, you need to talk about whether the shield transfer should be reduced or eliminated.

If i may interject for a moment i'd see more fitting for the shield grid to "act as one" to a certain extent.
This means that instead of generating additional damage, the damage is simply transferred between shields (100 damage coming, 100 damage dealt).

Though this also means that if even a single shield has been hit, the entire grid must wait for it's regeneration to kick in before they can regen.

This also open the door for many kind of interactions: do shields interact with every shield that is connected to them or only up to their Nth neighbor (ie: "up to 3 shields away")? is the distribution of damage based on absolute numbers or percentages? Does it happens instantaneously or does it takes some time to balance itself and, if the latter, what happens when a shield is brought down (either by destruction or EMP)? Does it screws up the whole grid bit time?

The shield disruptor could inflict a extra X damage to every shield in the grid (since, y'know, it's its job).

Rudolph'sRedNose wrote:
tatsu wrote:Why is it that air is immune to it when landed?

Faraday cage

If the plane is landed then it's touching the soil, just like tanks.
Also, the current might be melting the cage due to Ohm's Law (in this case the "cage" would be the armor/fuselage).

Statistics: Posted by zeroAPM — 27 Nov 2015, 22:21

Re: Balance

2015-11-27T22:13:05+02:00

Pretty spot on Brink, I think t2 shields and the bulwark are fine, but it would be nice if t3 shields as well as mobile shields did better.

Statistics: Posted by yeager — 27 Nov 2015, 22:13

Re: Balance

2015-11-27T21:24:48+02:00

The reason t3 arty is so much stronger than it used to be is that the shields were nerfed. With the transfer damage introduced about 2 years back, shields now have a really hard time standing up to t3 arty. The nerf was introduced to lessen the impact of firebase creeps, since shields would fail quicker, and to prevent "invincible" late game bases and t3 UEF navy. Instead of discussing a ton of different units and abilities, you need to talk about whether the shield transfer should be reduced or eliminated.

Statistics: Posted by BRNKoINSANITY — 27 Nov 2015, 21:24

Re: Balance

2015-11-27T18:43:37+02:00

funny, you looking here only at Cybrans´s advantage, but not on their weaknesses

Statistics: Posted by ZeRen — 27 Nov 2015, 18:43

Re: Balance

2015-11-27T17:15:06+02:00

Try making threads on specific topics in future rather than your own list of pet peeves so the thread doesn't turn into a clusterfuck. Also, there is a balance forum.

Statistics: Posted by JaggedAppliance — 27 Nov 2015, 17:15

Re: Balance

2015-11-27T17:06:42+02:00

If you know you will be late, you can prepare for this. And if you lose cause you are 30 sec late. You did something extremly wrong.

But its same for everything, if you get gun, t2, t3, strat or experimental earlier than your opponent you have better chances winning.
I dont see why arty should be different.

Statistics: Posted by speed2 — 27 Nov 2015, 17:06

Re: Balance

2015-11-27T16:55:48+02:00

Well anyway at this moment in time I can't be bothered to care too much since so few games actually reach that stage and when they do I'll just keep abusing arty. When we hopefully at some point get some decent teamgame players this will become a big problem in maps like hilly plateau, canis etc. but until then no point going through the effort of trying to get some decent change through

Statistics: Posted by Blodir — 27 Nov 2015, 16:55

Re: Balance

2015-11-27T16:51:42+02:00

If that was true it would be fine, even though it isn't. If you react to scouting a T3 arty building by trying to build your own faster you are taking that risk. I'd say it would be easier to make some mobile units to try and end it.

Statistics: Posted by briang — 27 Nov 2015, 16:51

Re: Balance

2015-11-27T16:56:09+02:00

Statistics: Posted by keyser — 27 Nov 2015, 16:49

Re: Balance

2015-11-27T16:46:01+02:00

speed2 wrote:
Blodir wrote:
speed2 wrote:One T3 arty is not an issue, unless you're drunk and think T2 shield will stop it. Two are getting annoying, 3 should be able to break though unless some super heavy shield spam

1 forces you to build so much shield enemy will have second one up by the time you got enough

If enemy has arty and you dont. You did something wrong, and if you realize enemy has an arty once your stuff goes pooooof, then you did something really wrong

Your arty is 30sec later so you lose game is reasonable?

Statistics: Posted by Blodir — 27 Nov 2015, 16:46