Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Balance patch 3684 Feedback Thread

2017-06-29T04:06:41+02:00

I would welcome a change to remove tree clumps or make them unbreakable. Its mainly an issue in team games and It takes up way too much time early on. Time that could be spent strategizing with team mates, an early attack, lab play, etc etc. Its pretty boring to try to position engies correctly, and keep dragging attack move. I also think it makes the game more intuitive, which is always good for newer players.

If you dont want to remove it, I would consider increasing the 25% to 50% + . Right now its still so much better to reclaim them in clumps. To give an example from setons, A single scout, which is very difficult to catch, can basically cause a 4k mass differential for air players at minute 9.

Statistics: Posted by CrazedChariot — 29 Jun 2017, 04:06

Re: Balance patch 3684 Feedback Thread

2017-06-08T15:41:43+02:00

JoonasTo wrote:
At a glance I don't like the tree change.
Also a very unintuitive change and another thing to learn for new players that doesn't make any sense. Simplifying learning the game was a goal before, I don't know about the current balance team's stance on this but this is detrimental to closing in on that goal.

Engies not breaking tree groups would have helped a loooong way in that direction. Tree groups are very unintuitive, you break a tree somewhere and a tree group miles away is broken. If you do not give a move command before the reclaim, the energy you get is pretty much random. Sometimes your engy will break the group and reclaim just one tree before moving on, sometimes it will give you the group. It feels like playing ludo: cast a dice and see if your BO works or you stall so much e you loose.
Yes, I can learn which tree belongs to which group and I can learn to give move commands before the reclaim. When I play a game like SupCom, I like to become good at it so I really have no problem doing things like training micro, sandboxing BOs etc. But it stops with tree groups. That 'feature' of the game has nothing to do with rts skills and is really too boring for me to master. That is part of the reason I'm not playing right now, I really hoped for this change :/

Statistics: Posted by SpoCk0nd0pe — 08 Jun 2017, 15:41

Re: Balance patch 3684 Feedback Thread

2017-06-08T08:00:14+02:00

Lich King wrote:
useless flak change.

Lich King wrote:
a toggle fire mode?

You make flak to shoot enemy units. You make pd to shoot tanks. Stationary flak isnt made because it's as expensive as 2.5 flak for effectively 1 flak dps. This change addresses no actual balance issue, really, why did this make you think flak would suddenly be built? The only way how is if you make it strong enough to make t2 pd irrelevant. Basically same thing as skysmashers being able to shoot land units. No one cares because it isn't optimal use of mass if you're planning on attacking.

Statistics: Posted by FtXCommando — 08 Jun 2017, 08:00

Re: Balance patch 3684 Feedback Thread

2017-06-08T06:54:58+02:00

Lich King wrote:
Jagged, what if we roll back the useless flak change and instead give them a toggle fire mode? They'll be able to shoot land or air units, kinda like the real AA cannons can be turned to aim at land armies.

please no

first of all, don't equate "real world" cannons to ingame ones, not only is this a game set a number of thousand years into the future but this is a video game, and depictions of weapons and their various abilities may vary, a number of tanks in world war 2 could point their guns high into the air and serve as light artillery pieces, but this is never seen ingame, literally because "video games"

as for the flak, you want t2 to have a direct fire aoe weapon that would take a giant dump on t1 tanks that also toggles to shredding air, for what reason? the balance of t1 tanks vs t2 tanks would be totally disrupted, whereas i think they're in a decent place right now..

Statistics: Posted by biass — 08 Jun 2017, 06:54

Re: Balance patch 3684 Feedback Thread

2017-06-08T06:11:39+02:00

Jagged, what if we roll back the useless flak change and instead give them a toggle fire mode? They'll be able to shoot land or air units, kinda like the real AA cannons can be turned to aim at land armies.

Statistics: Posted by Lieutenant Lich — 08 Jun 2017, 06:11

Re: Balance patch 3684 Feedback Thread

2017-06-08T03:44:02+02:00

JoonasTo wrote:
I finally had time to read through the patchnotes(been busy, I know.) I am disappointed.

First of all, I get that you want differences between units that are easier to see(MMLs were already quite differentiated but hard to see at a glance if you aren't deeply involved with the game) but did you think this is fine without touching the TMDs?
Or did I miss a patch where you already buffed them?

The main point of the MML changes was not about differentiating the MMLs, but to improve the non-cybran MMLs. I think this is fine without changing TMD.

And then you lessened the differentiation between the static flak? Again, I understand your point in buffing them vs fast turning targets but this should have been done more in line with the overall policy. Contradictions don't make for a good showing, this is not magic.
I hope you take another look at them.

I may take another look at static flak but I think the differentiation between them introduced all the way back in 3629 was largely useless. If they are never built the differences are ofc meaningless. The main focus has to be on giving them a real use within the game and once that's achieved we can look more towards differentiation.

Also aurora nerf, BAD. No one (should) ever fights with their tanks standing still so this a straight nerf to the unit. Having Aurora stand still in a firefight is already penalised heavily(they flat out die.) This should be expanded to all tanks and maybe even all direct fire units if you wish to use this. There is no logical reason only Aurora should be punished like this for moving(units moving miss more, great! easy to learn, it's logical. Why does only one unit miss more while moving? Bad, not logical, not intuitive.)
As it is now, it should be reversed and a larger, more comprehensive penalty to firing on the move should be researched, tested and discussed. If done well enough, you might even introduce stutterstep micro into this game.

There is a thread about the aurora nerf which has been quite helpful. There are some flaws with the implemented change but I also think it basically achieved its goal which was a general and slight nerf to aurora. In the thread I said I would try another approach so we'll see if that can work out better.

At a glance I don't like the tree change. Killing treegroups was a fine and valiant endeavour for an early james bond scout and in my mind a worthy mechanic. I haven't tested this regression yet but if it's going to be worth it to trample trees again before reclaiming them...
Also a very unintuitive change and another thing to learn for new players that doesn't make any sense. Simplifying learning the game was a goal before, I don't know about the current balance team's stance on this but this is detrimental to closing in on that goal.

It's not worth breaking trees before reclaiming them. As for learning the game and new players I think this change has basically zero impact on those things. Scouting trees is still worth it but its effect is more limited.

Aeon shield needs a comparative HP or cost buff to work with that longer recharge, it's too hard of a nerf alone. The only reason to get the shield before(for me) was the fast recharge, the few hitpoints are not worth it alone.

We'll see how it goes but I think it's still a very reasonable upgrade.

Isn't the satellite affected by the bouncing shields? Because this seems an unnecessary change. In general, we should refrain from changing things if we don't need to. The closer we are to the base game/the game from 1/2/3/5/10 years back, the easier it is for people to return/get in to the game from the steam side. It's easy to learn a few major changes that are similar across the board, it's hard to learn a million small ones here and there(not that this particular one has any real impact in this case but small things add up.)

I agree somewhat that changes from the base should be limited and also agree this change has no real impact on that

EXPERIMENTAL VET NERF
HIP HIP HOORAY! HIP HIP HOORAY! HIP HIP HOORAY!
I'm a bit scared about some of the regen values but at first glance, they don't look to bad. Without testing can't say more(and I don't have time for that.)

I'm really looking forward to seeing it in action. Thanks for your comments.

Statistics: Posted by JaggedAppliance — 08 Jun 2017, 03:44

Re: Balance patch 3684 Feedback Thread

2017-06-07T17:49:06+02:00

I finally had time to read through the patchnotes(been busy, I know.) I am disappointed.

First of all, I get that you want differences between units that are easier to see(MMLs were already quite differentiated but hard to see at a glance if you aren't deeply involved with the game) but did you think this is fine without touching the TMDs?
Or did I miss a patch where you already buffed them?

And then you lessened the differentiation between the static flak? Again, I understand your point in buffing them vs fast turning targets but this should have been done more in line with the overall policy. Contradictions don't make for a good showing, this is not magic.
I hope you take another look at them.

Also aurora nerf, BAD. No one (should) ever fights with their tanks standing still so this a straight nerf to the unit. Having Aurora stand still in a firefight is already penalised heavily(they flat out die.) This should be expanded to all tanks and maybe even all direct fire units if you wish to use this. There is no logical reason only Aurora should be punished like this for moving(units moving miss more, great! easy to learn, it's logical. Why does only one unit miss more while moving? Bad, not logical, not intuitive.)
As it is now, it should be reversed and a larger, more comprehensive penalty to firing on the move should be researched, tested and discussed. If done well enough, you might even introduce stutterstep micro into this game.

At a glance I don't like the tree change. Killing treegroups was a fine and valiant endeavour for an early james bond scout and in my mind a worthy mechanic. I haven't tested this regression yet but if it's going to be worth it to trample trees again before reclaiming them...
Also a very unintuitive change and another thing to learn for new players that doesn't make any sense. Simplifying learning the game was a goal before, I don't know about the current balance team's stance on this but this is detrimental to closing in on that goal.

Aeon shield needs a comparative HP or cost buff to work with that longer recharge, it's too hard of a nerf alone. The only reason to get the shield before(for me) was the fast recharge, the few hitpoints are not worth it alone.

Isn't the satellite affected by the bouncing shields? Because this seems an unnecessary change. In general, we should refrain from changing things if we don't need to. The closer we are to the base game/the game from 1/2/3/5/10 years back, the easier it is for people to return/get in to the game from the steam side. It's easy to learn a few major changes that are similar across the board, it's hard to learn a million small ones here and there(not that this particular one has any real impact in this case but small things add up.)

EXPERIMENTAL VET NERF
HIP HIP HOORAY! HIP HIP HOORAY! HIP HIP HOORAY!
I'm a bit scared about some of the regen values but at first glance, they don't look to bad. Without testing can't say more(and I don't have time for that.)

Statistics: Posted by JoonasTo — 07 Jun 2017, 17:49

Re: Balance patch 3684 Feedback Thread

2017-06-02T08:17:08+02:00

That would require moving from spawn point.

Statistics: Posted by Mel_Gibson — 02 Jun 2017, 08:17

Re: Balance patch 3684 Feedback Thread

2017-06-02T05:14:49+02:00

I mean, maybe this sounds weird, but what if you... you know... build next to the wreckage?

Statistics: Posted by Farmsletje — 02 Jun 2017, 05:14

Re: Balance patch 3684 Feedback Thread

2017-06-02T04:55:00+02:00

Had a czar fall on my shield com. It destroyed all sams and shields in the area. Queued up some new ones inside reclaim. Still reclaiming by the time the new one arrived. 10/10. Would not reclaim again.

Statistics: Posted by Mel_Gibson — 02 Jun 2017, 04:55

Re: Balance patch 3684 Feedback Thread

2017-06-01T13:56:42+02:00

Morax wrote:
Actually, farm, people build mobile flak because BUILD_MORE_FLAK,aka Soviet Pride, told them to!

Why thank you.
I also attribute it to my patented method of teaching known as Darwinism.
If you die to shit like gunships or mercies it's your own god damn fault for being that far in without protection.

Statistics: Posted by Sovietpride — 01 Jun 2017, 13:56

Re: Balance patch 3684 Feedback Thread

2017-06-01T12:45:36+02:00

Lich King wrote:
Philip... by 3844 I'd expect humans to develop lasers and teleportation, that is what is expected. What is not expected because it wouldn't be practical is to have flak cannons that are able to snipe planes that fly at super or hyper sonic speeds. Say, a missile to kill that pesky plane after it flies by would be nice and practical and far cheaper to develop. Or a thing called ASF that will intercept the plane before it reaches its destination. Massed interceptors will do, too.

We have, today, completely automatic rotary cannons that can detect, aim, and fire at sea-skimming missiles (radar, meet ground clutter, ground clutter, meet radar) going MUCH faster than any in-game TML all while tracking every single bullet fired in order to correct their aim and maximize the probability to hit.
We are this close to have railguns firing a solid tungsten slug at Mach 7.
Combine the two with a fragmentation payload and suddenly projecting a flack screen in front of a supersonic aircraft's face start to become less of a fantasy (although it might be easier to just skewer the aircraft with a solid shell at that point)

Fun fact, a railgun flack was one of the various projects of WWII Germany.

Spoiler: show

Statistics: Posted by zeroAPM — 01 Jun 2017, 12:45

Re: Balance patch 3684 Feedback Thread

2017-06-01T05:49:14+02:00

Lich King wrote:
On the topic of flak though, besides my realism clause, there is that which Evildrew stated. Flak did fine against t1 and T2, that's all it was meant to do. The reason T3 is so fast is so that those little flaks can't catch them! besides, if someone strat rushes, they invest quite a lot of mass into 1) RAS 2) T3 air HQ 3) pgens 4) strats and a shitton of energy. if by then you do not have some counter.. boy, you've done something wrong way before the strat came out.

Realism in a game where we were expected to land on mars 2 years ago, ok. You aren't rushing RAS to rush strats. Flak isn't some hard counter against strats, I still fail to see why people have this idea that 2 flak means you can't be hit by strats.

Lich King wrote:
Philip... by 3844 I'd expect humans to develop lasers and teleportation, that is what is expected. What is not expected because it wouldn't be practical is to have flak cannons that are able to snipe planes that fly at super or hyper sonic speeds. Say, a missile to kill that pesky plane after it flies by would be nice and practical and far cheaper to develop. Or a thing called ASF that will intercept the plane before it reaches its destination. Massed interceptors will do, too.

You have no conception of what life will be like in 1800 years. Good luck explaining computers and wifi to someone from 200 AD.

Lich King wrote:
Strat rushes are not seen that often on open 10x10 land maps because the games are either won or lost by the time someone has the eco to make strats, if not earlier. On larger maps like Seton's they are expected and therefore should be prepped for. Point of Reach & the like also see strats sometimes if navy cannot break the stalemate or as a last resort to pull off a win (done that myself, rushed strats and exterminated the enemy team while we were on the brink of defeat).

That's great. Problem is that air victories are often all or nothing. Plenty of games where one air slot locks the opposing air slot with 7 or so asfs and then has free reign with a strat that gets 45 kills and decides the game solely because another player was 40 seconds late in their air build.

Lich King wrote:
In other words, roll back this flak change, it should not be present and it screws with balance. Balance was approaching perfection before this.
Also, Seraphim splash gun should not be made more expensive. It should be made cheaper and less powerful so it's seen more often. When it appears in the game, it is already too dangerous for an ACU to be in combat because there are percies,
massed harbs/loyalists/bricks, sometimes strats and definitely gunships

Balance is definitely not approaching perfection. Weren't you one of those guys that hated the controversial changes in 2016? Now balance is approaching perfection?

Phim 2nd gun is meant to be an upgrade you can get around the end of the t2 eco stage. It's like half the Cybran laser cost e-wise and the cost of a t3 mex for a push around the point when t3 units are beginning to show up. It's a niche upgrade that serves to supplement a timed push at a time Phim is supposed to be at their strongest. Also how can you complain about how flak totally crushed the balance for T3 air and then say you can't push because of gunships and strats?

Statistics: Posted by FtXCommando — 01 Jun 2017, 05:49

Re: Balance patch 3684 Feedback Thread

2017-06-01T05:11:45+02:00

Spoiler: show

On the topic of flak though, besides my realism clause, there is that which Evildrew stated. Flak did fine against t1 and T2, that's all it was meant to do. The reason T3 is so fast is so that those little flaks can't catch them! besides, if someone strat rushes, they invest quite a lot of mass into 1) RAS 2) T3 air HQ 3) pgens 4) strats and a shitton of energy. if by then you do not have some counter.. boy, you've done something wrong way before the strat came out.

Philip... by 3844 I'd expect humans to develop lasers and teleportation, that is what is expected. What is not expected because it wouldn't be practical is to have flak cannons that are able to snipe planes that fly at super or hyper sonic speeds. Say, a missile to kill that pesky plane after it flies by would be nice and practical and far cheaper to develop. Or a thing called ASF that will intercept the plane before it reaches its destination. Massed interceptors will do, too.

Strat rushes are not seen that often on open 10x10 land maps because the games are either won or lost by the time someone has the eco to make strats, if not earlier. On larger maps like Seton's they are expected and therefore should be prepped for. Point of Reach & the like also see strats sometimes if navy cannot break the stalemate or as a last resort to pull off a win (done that myself, rushed strats and exterminated the enemy team while we were on the brink of defeat).

In other words, roll back this flak change, it should not be present and it screws with balance. Balance was approaching perfection before this.

Spoiler: show

Statistics: Posted by Lieutenant Lich — 01 Jun 2017, 05:11

Re: Balance patch 3684 Feedback Thread

2017-05-31T15:36:34+02:00

In the end whether you do or dont use a unit out of personal preference or lack of knowledge about differences, the unit palette should consist of these tools and not be geared to balance races based on how people prefer to play. I would never spam t1 aa vs 300 t1 bombers, it will never hold up but t1 aa does realky well (too well) vs asf...

Statistics: Posted by Evildrew — 31 May 2017, 15:36