Forged Alliance Forever

Re: The Definitive Thread on Balance Patch Discussion

2016-09-05T17:14:07+02:00

I didn't read everything. But i am sorta confused about whether you want to nerf or increase the ACU hitpoints. We can't just patch the game in such a way that it increases your own HP while decreasing the enemey HP. You have to make up your mind.
Regarding the aurora. The idea of altering the Damage of a unit due to being on water sounds stupid. The speed changes on water are due to it being a hovertank that treats different territory differently. Either change the aurora as a whole or leave it as a whole. We don't need any +10% damage under a full moon or -30% damage if the enemey holds a cross at you while shouting "The power of christ compels you!"
By the way, the aurora is not only weaker than other factions tanks because it can hover. Hovering is a nice thing but its just a bonus. The aurora has as much range as a T1 pd, it can outrange other T1 tanks and ACUs, it can dodge sideways. Whether the aurora is well balanced or not on land is a whole different discussion that i think mainly ladder players should concern themselves with.
Why not compare the aurora to the other factions T1 hovertank. Oh. Doesn't work so well, does it? If you make land units equally powerful as naval units there is no point in building them. It is many times easier to get auroras or to spam them compared to navy. How is your enemey supposed to kill an aurora spam on water if frigates are weaker against aurora. You can also try to use T2 Hovertanks to push out navy. They are a bit more powerful since they require more tech investment. Or you can try to overcharge frigates if they get close enough. But demanding that aeon get an easy way out of getting beaten in early navy while other factions don't have any way aeon hasn't got as well at T1 sounds a bit spoiled.

Statistics: Posted by GrilledChicken — 05 Sep 2016, 17:14

Re: The Definitive Thread on Balance Patch Discussion

2016-09-03T09:48:39+02:00

hello hawkei, man
hate t'be the one to tell you
you are being mocked

(pro haiku, i know)

Statistics: Posted by biass — 03 Sep 2016, 09:48

Re: The Definitive Thread on Balance Patch Discussion

2016-09-03T09:47:02+02:00

People get killed by stuff all the time. It doesn't mean that there aren't counters or even that they are imbalanced...

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 03 Sep 2016, 09:47

Re: The Definitive Thread on Balance Patch Discussion

2016-09-03T07:04:11+02:00

Hawkei wrote:
Game 1: I got killed by A, B, and C.

Solution: Nerf A, B, and C.

Game 2: I got killed by D, and E.

Solution: Nerf D and E.

Game 3: I got killed by F, G, and H.

Solution: Nerf F, G, and H... Where have I heard this before?

Well, if A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H are causing unfair deaths, does it not make sense to nerf them?

Statistics: Posted by everywhere116 — 03 Sep 2016, 07:04

Re: The Definitive Thread on Balance Patch Discussion

2016-09-01T22:40:09+02:00

Game 1: I got killed by A, B, and C.

Solution: Nerf A, B, and C.

Game 2: I got killed by D, and E.

Solution: Nerf D and E.

Game 3: I got killed by F, G, and H.

Solution: Nerf F, G, and H... Where have I heard this before?

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 01 Sep 2016, 22:40

Re: The Definitive Thread on Balance Patch Discussion

2016-09-01T17:49:10+02:00

marshallichking, man
hate t'be the one to tell you
you are being mocked

(pro haiku, i know)

Statistics: Posted by nocaps — 01 Sep 2016, 17:49

Re: The Definitive Thread on Balance Patch Discussion

2016-09-01T14:50:06+02:00

Everywhere, there's an answer:
Fixed in my mod.

Statistics: Posted by Lieutenant Lich — 01 Sep 2016, 14:50

Re: The Definitive Thread on Balance Patch Discussion

2016-09-01T14:57:10+02:00

I watched the sleipnir match vs Lucifer.

I'm baffled how good a 216 ranked player is at 1vs1, i think you put up a good fight.

I have to say for myself that I'm not very good at 1vs1, but I can't help myself pointing you (or both players) to one important thing:

-->RECLAIM<--

From the numerous assaults, you had loads of t3 wrecks lying right at your feet. You could have built a gc out of them and won the game easily. Just send a couple of engineers over the area where a battle took place, with patrol order or better attack move (ALT + right mouse button), and they reclaim the wrecks. That is the advantage of winning battles on parts of the map you control, you have to capitalize on that!

And remember, Aeon Harbingers have the ability to reclaim, too. So when you won a battle, set them to reclaim wrecks by pressing "e" and left-clicking the wrecks (while holding down shift).

I hope this advice is helpful to you.

Statistics: Posted by JMorten — 01 Sep 2016, 13:56

Re: The Definitive Thread on Balance Patch Discussion

2016-09-01T13:02:16+02:00

I just watched your high noon game. I know I know, I only watched it once so i probably missed some important things and got some numbers wrong.
But i'm going to give my opinion anyway.

I've got some ideas of my own:

To compensate for RAS nerf, give ACU more mass storage. Since you overflowed mass. Why should someone get punished for having a lot of mass? Thats almost like having rich people pay more taxes.
Notify player that he has enough mass in storage to make a GC. This one works nicely with the extra storage. Without it your storage wouldn't be big enough for a full GC. Which is why you didn't notice the opportunity you had but instead you just kept overflowing. (we need an equivalent for each faction ofcourse, except cybran, cause cybran OP)
Since ASF can kill Navy now, why not let them kill land aswell? I mean you had all those shiny asf and swiftwinds, but they were powerless against the monkeylord. I don't support bullying and neither should you!

These are mere suggestions though, no demands are being made here.

Statistics: Posted by KeyBlue — 01 Sep 2016, 13:02

Re: The Definitive Thread on Balance Patch Discussion

2016-09-01T10:55:20+02:00

everywhere116 wrote:
An hour long match on High Noon that would make even McCree question what time it is,

perfectly executed

Statistics: Posted by biass — 01 Sep 2016, 10:55

The Definitive Thread on Balance Patch Discussion

2016-09-01T10:51:45+02:00

Well, this patch certainly has been a doozy, hasn't it? People have strong opinions of this patch going both ways, people renaming themselves in protest of the changes and others dismissing them saying to get with the times, references to traumatic and controversial figures in history, accusations of certain people acting as autocratic dictators while unironically simultaneously campaigning for other people to become autocratic dictators, etc.. Well, I'm here to helpfully settle all of the debate and discussion. I played a number of ladder games with the current patch, and I'm going to go through each one and discuss what went right, what went wrong, how I lost, and how these replay's disasterous outcomes can be fixed with future patches.

Replay # 5100519 - Lucyffer29 vs everywhere116 on Sleipner

This match was a very long one, as Sleipner matches tend to be. My opponent was UEF and was on the bottom, and he rushed to the side, grabbed the mexes, and then rushed next to my base on the right side, got T3, and started to build a firebase. I was able to crack it and force his com to retreat but the considerable amount of resources it to do so demonstrates a flaw: It is far too easy to setup a firebase with the com, even with the nerf to tech buildpower. This came at a cost to eco and expansion potential elsewhere, but had the base not been dealt with my home base would have been ravager creeped. This could also point to the ravager needing a nerf, as their range can creat a chicken and egg situation where your artillery cannot kill the ravagers because they are protected by shielding, but you can't get close enough with the arty to kill the shields because they then get in range of the ravagers. It is very annoying to deal with. After he retreated he got back to his own base, which was equally defended to the point where a squad of 12 harbingers couldn't even get close to it. He then proceeded to build three fatboys sitting in his base, and while I was able to deal with two of them the third killed me.

Lessons learned: Nerf tech com buildpower, ravager range, shields potentially

Replay # 5103591 - everywhere116 vs Lt_Gen_Fluffy on EOTS

This match was relatively short as far as EOTS matches go. The first thing we can see is one of my early bombers travelling across the sea to the enemy hydro position, however it was shot down before it was able to kill any engies. This would normally be expected, but directly afterward an enemy bomber got in my base and despite being chased by two interceptors it was able to kill 5 engineers before it was shot down. THis proves that, despite the balance changes to make the bombers more even, Seraphim bombers are still more powerful than Aeon bombers, especially with regards to killing grouped targets. This is a serious issue that needs to be fixed pretty quickly.

The other thing of note is that, despite breaking my eco to get an early navy out, I was still forced out of the water by a group of frigates. However, I did have a platoon of auroras nearby, and I sent them out into the water to clear the frigates out. I then found out that, even though the aurora is supposed to trade some of it's speed and health for the versatility to deal with naval threats, it still cannot handle this task as advertised. The previous patch proved that altering stats based on a unit's status as either on land or on the water, the aurora needs a firepower boost on water so it can compete with naval units as it is supposed to. I eventually died to destroyer fire, but I was resigned to my fate as my auroras and bombers had already let me down.

Lessons learned: Buff Aeon bomber, nerf Seraphim bomber, buff aurora damage when on water.

Replay # 5103953 - everywhere116 vs Lt_Gen_Fluffy on Sleipner

Great, another Sleipner match. I'm starting to get a very good feel for this map, its slight imbalances and differences on each side nawing at the OCD beast within me....but enough about me and my childhood psychological traumas, onto the game. Unlike last game, the Lt. and I played fairly similarly. I decided to follow the meta my last opponent showed and moved my com to the other mass/hydro pocket, which was a very good move. Looking back over the replay, there wasn't too much in terms of balance that screwed me over. I was ecoing more and he was spamming more, and he did get to my base but the situation was under control and the increased eco would have turned the tide eventually...had my commander not gone down the rabbit hole trying to OC a single Illshevoh and gotten caught in a whole squad of them. I believe this reveals a flaw in the interface rather than any particular unit, I did have radar over the area but the radar station got sniped by a bomber. I feel like the game should have notified me of this earlier, the loss of such an important structure being marked by a ping or something. But that is mod territory, and fitting with the theme of the post I think this situation could have been rectified by increasing the vision radius of the commander, so as to have better information about what is around your com before you try moving it too far. I also believe that increasing the health of the ACU would be wise as well, so that the ACU cannot be so easily killed by units that manage to sneak into the base even if a player has the advantage on the rest of the map. I think this would be appreciated by a lot of players and should be considered putting into the next patch.

Lessons learned: Notify when radar is lost, increase ACU vision range, increase ACU HP.

Replay # 5103996 - Grothe vs everywhere116 on Pointed Cove

Here we see a 5x5 map, and here we see the inherent gameplay shift that is required when playing a 5x5 map. I didn't follow the meta and didn't secure my mass quickly enough, and that hurt me and ultimately lost me the game, but I think this replay still has a teachable moment to it, and it shows how disproportionatly powerful the ACU can be on such a small map. At one point his ACU crossed the middle and walked into my production facility. I quickly noticed it and moved some units behind him to cut him off, move the units in my factor towards him and moved my commander towards him as well. Despite having the local advantage in units, surrounding the com and with my commander hitting hm as well, he was able to get away with not even half his health gone and then was able to win the game. This type of agressive behavior should be suicide, after all in any other game, or even real war, a commander should stay as far away form an enemy base as possible, but in this game under the current balance patch it is rewarded because at such a small scale killing a commander is very hard. I believe a nerf to ACU HP would fix this nicely, punishing aggressive suicidal gameplay and help make FAF make sense again.

Lessons learned: Decrease ACU HP

Replay # 5104175: Lach_Stock vs everywhere116 on High Noon

This one was a fun one. An hour long match on High Noon that would make even McCree question what time it is, but one marked with heavy balance flaws. The opening 20 minutes weren't anything too bad, probably the only thing of note would be how good corsairs are an sniping mexes and shielded T2 pgens now. I don't know if the balance patch them them more accurate too or something, but they all seemed to hit right on their mark despite normalling missing with one or two of their missiles. Either way, they were mitigated so it wasn't a big deal. What was a bigger deal was the naval battles. After putting most of my mass into navy to get a bunch of destroyers out, bracing up for the naval fight that was to come, I finally got it. Scouting showed that I had more destroyers than the enemy and could easily win the naval battle....until I realized in horror as my naval battlegroups fell to a naval force half their size because of the presence of a single mermaid that blocked the signatures. This shows an obvious advantage that Cybran navies have over other navies, the ability to hide their ships and attack with impunity. Even T3 sonar can't penetrate the mermaid's stealth field, so trying to force battles into enemy territory where I couldn't see was pointless. I believe this can be fixed by making the benefits of the mermaid worse and its costs better, namely, by shrinking the stealth field and increasing its energy cost of running it. This would still let Cybrans use their racial benefit on the water without giving them too much of an edge.

Still, I was able to get some destroyers into his bay and was able to clear out all of the mexes on that side. (His naval production and commander were on the other side of the island.) Strat bombers took care of some other mexes and I had cut him down to four mexes, and since I was still in tact surely I'd have an impossible to overcome mass advantage. Well, no, despite losing all of his mass he was still able to pull a Monkeylord out of his ass and send it over. Me, having most of my mass in naval units couldn't deal with it, so I lost. Looking back over the replay, it turned out that he had RAS on his com and was supplementing his income with it. Clearly, this shows that even with the RAS nerfins, its not enough, and RAS is still too powerful. I might even go so far as to say that the Monkeylord is too cheap as well, after all if it can be built on 4 mexes and a RAS com and can win the game it must be overpowered or not as expensive as it should. I think fixing either or both of these issues would help tremendously.

Lessons learned: Nerf Corsair, nerf mermaid stealth radius/increase mermaid energy drain, nerf RAS and/or Monkeylord cost.

Well, that is it, a full history of my ladder playing so far under the new patch. There were others, but I won those games so they didn't fit the narrative didn't show any major balance problems so I didn't include them. I hope the balance team considers this post and my solutions to these glaring issues, and I thank you all for reading this post. Good day to you all.

Statistics: Posted by everywhere116 — 01 Sep 2016, 10:51