Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Some Balance Suggestions

2017-09-05T04:44:51+02:00

Erich von Manstein wrote:
In what universe would an aeon guncom with shield lsoe to UEF nano guncom? He just kites and the UEF has to either retreat or die!

In almost every universe in which i've faced an aeon guncom with shield. So in around 50-100 universes i guess.

Erich von Manstein wrote:
If the Seraphim lose their Zthuue's advantage, the faction might as well be removed. The fobo is their ace, one of the few REAL aces they have. It already has the cost of a t1 tank and it's not that fast, what more do you want? Want it to be as situational as Titan?

Yeah i agree. Lowering fobo speed on the water will make sera a useless faction. It's not like anyone ever played as them on a land map!

Statistics: Posted by Farmsletje — 05 Sep 2017, 04:44

Re: Some Balance Suggestions

2017-09-05T04:23:38+02:00

I'd rather not touch the buildings except maybe give sera a but more HP or just revert the HP changes altogether, along with the regen.

In what universe would an aeon guncom with shield lsoe to UEF nano guncom? He just kites and the UEF has to either retreat or die!

Inties are good but they won't catch the bomber before it drops unless it flies right into them or unless you have it scouted.

Lowering HQ costs is indeed a good idea because UEF and Seraphim's best counters to Auroras are at t2 (Pillar + shield, Mongoose + radar + micro, Yenzynes, Ilshies). I wouldn't touch the t2 air HQ since in the current balance, t2 F/B will get killed by an equal mass worth of inties and a couple mobile flaks coupled with shields or an interceptor force nullify their use.

Spoiler: show

Why does everyone want to buff flak vs. t3? T3 is made to be fast, so fast it can avoid the slow flak shells. Also, swarms of inties have been known to kill lose ASFs or strats quite well.

Spoiler: show

If the Seraphim lose their Zthuue's advantage, the faction might as well be removed. The fobo is their ace, one of the few REAL aces they have. It already has the cost of a t1 tank and it's not that fast, what more do you want? Want it to be as situational as Titan?

As for the strat, the buff is a good idea except I'd go as far as restoring their cost to what it was before last summer's shitty patch

Statistics: Posted by Lieutenant Lich — 05 Sep 2017, 04:23

Re: Some Balance Suggestions

2017-09-05T00:50:19+02:00

This entire discussion was about the early t3 air stage. Do you try to snipe people with your first strat? No, you go after eco and other important buildings.

Genius

Statistics: Posted by Farmsletje — 05 Sep 2017, 00:50

Re: Some Balance Suggestions

2017-09-05T00:44:36+02:00

Farmsletje wrote:
very rarely you see attempted strat snipes on acu's because it is a very big gamble.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4

Statistics: Posted by Lieutenant Lich — 05 Sep 2017, 00:44

Re: Some Balance Suggestions

2017-09-04T17:05:51+02:00

Seraphim economic/factory building specialty
I'm not quite sure what we could do to justify Seraphim not getting the same hitpoints as UEF. Regen, Extra HP and Vision are all defensive boons with no upkeep. As such I am hesitant to give them anything that isn't defensive and upkeep free.

The extra mass storage was just one idea and since only factories and mass storages store mass, it's not really all that good of an idea either. Not to mention it's an economic boon, not defensive.

Radar, stealth, cloak, omni, sonar, etc. all have upkeep on buildings with those abilities. Having one of those free would break the uniformity. If we're not concerned about that the Seraphim did have jamming crystals in the campaigns so jamming would be a fitting defensive boon lore wise.

Aeon Commander Shield
Currently Aeon Gun+Shield Commander ties with a cheaper UEF Gun+Nano Commander and loses to the more expensive Seraphim Gun+Nano Commander. As long as we keep that situation as is I don't think there should be any issues with it.

However, if we want to change it's role from a combat shield to a hit'n'run shield, that could be achieved with giving it a high regen rate(as shields don't regen in combat) while reducing it's hitpoints. Cut down the hitpoints to 3-5k from 8 and increase the regen from 30 to 50-80. This way the commander getting caught in a prolonged fight suffers a heavy penalty but a commander kiting away from the enemy army benefits greatly compared to the current situation. Then the recharge time(which does reload in combat) could be adjusted depending on how badly we want the aeon player to be punished for getting caught in that melee.

Regarding T1 Bombers and Interceptors
They're just way too expensive right now to fit their tier slot, not weak. While it seems quite the same thing it's not. A single T1 bomber left alone can eradicate whole expansions without AA or multiple T1 factories. Three to four of them can wipe out bases with static T1 AA in the time it takes for inties to arrive there. But while their middle/late game potential is there, an early bomber is almost always a death wish because of the costs associated with it. This needs to be changed but I don't yet know how it would best be done without returning the first bomber opening to it's former glory(as that seems to be taboo.)
This shouldn't stop us from making the interceptors capable of doing their job properly. When the bomber physics were changed nothing was done to the interceptor to match the improved capabilities of the bomber and now without micro, an interceptor flying to defend against a bomber will not kill it before two(sometimes three) more bombs have been dropped(after the first shot from the interceptor has been fired.) An undefended and nonmicroed bomber in enemy airspace shouldn't be allowed to continue to stay effective to such an extent, regardless of it's cost.

Regarding T2 Tech
Currently T2 Air factory/T2 commander is the only real tech route(as it's almost half as cheap as T2 land and over half as cheap as T2 naval) to T2 power which is the stepping stone to a whole lot of other things. T2 commander suit is hardlocked for Cybran behind gun and for aeon behind gun range. Quite a lot of maps also soft lock the T2 power from commander's suit due to commander placement at the front line. Naturally this leads to T2 air factory being the choice on most maps and in most situations.

Considering the costs associated with producing T2 navy it's never going to be a viable route to T2 tech but T2 land should be. It should also go without saying that having T2 Flak be much more inaccessible compared to T2 bombers(and gunships) is bad for balance.

Decreasing the cost difference between air and land T2 HQ can be done in at least three ways. First, we simply decrease the cost of T2 Land HQ, this has the problem of buffing all T2 land rushes so it should only be done in moderation. Second, we increase the cost of T2 Air HQ, this can be separated into direct cost increase and indirect cost increase. Direct cost increase is simple, we just increase the mass, energy and buildtime X%. Indirect cost increase we increase the amount of energy required independently of the mass cost(and build time,) this way the upgrade will require more infrastructure to support it and rushing it with engineers without adjacency bonuses becomes more difficult as well.
I'd recommend we drop the T2 Land HQ price a little, to around 1300 mass and increase the energy cost of the T2 Air HQ to match the T3 Air HQ relative energy cost, that would make it 20,4k energy instead of the 14,4k energy we currently have.

Regarding Flak
I never had a problem with my flak running into the enemy, ever. If assist command(bugged as it may be) and attack move which pauses if it's about to run into an enemy army on top of command groups are not enough then I can only suggest setting up a hotkey for selecting all army on screen without Flak and one for all Flak on screen.

What does pain me a whole lot more is inability to have anti-air with my raiding forces. My main army and/or base is almost always protected by my own air force so the most use for flak I have is for securing my commander and raiding forces. As it is now, the flak is completely incapable of defending the raiding units because it's simply too slow to keep up with them(loyas, harbs, hover tanks.) We shouldn't deny capable players possibilities because other people are incapable of not suiciding their units.

The other issue is Flak's poor reliability. If it's not on direct path of the target unit, or if the target unit is flying away from it, it can't be trusted to hit consistently. The changes with muzzle velocity are not intended to change the current balance between Flak and T1/T2 air in any way. That is why the stats have to be adjusted accordingly if it's tested to have improved the Flaks' performance too much. The aim is to have a consistent result regardless of the situation, not switch balance.
This would improve large flak formations(10+ Flak) vs ASF, Spy planes, Scout Planes, Swift Winds and Strats as they could be expected to hit most of the time. In the current balance 10 Flaks can kill a Strat formation flying over them if they're lucky and not do any damage if they're unlucky. The aim would be to have it always do considerable damage(30-50%) but never kill.

Wagners
Currently all T2 amphibious tanks are limited to raiding on any map with sufficiently large ocean for naval micro. Wagners, already being harder to kill than other faction's hovering units, and thus being better at it(not to mention stealthier,) have gained an even larger advantage as they are not slowed in the sea, unlike their counterparts. This would just bring them back into balance in that role. As Cybran already have a great frigate and a good sub I don't think there's any reason for them to have such an unmatched raiding tank too. They'd still be excellent and the best raiding tank, just not by that much of a wide margin.
And let's not forget, Wagners beat walled T1 PDs 1vs1 without any issues while the others struggle. So killing them before they get to the beach is a higher priority.

PS. Zthuue is too strong of an unique tool. Jester and Aurora(in hover concept) do not come near the strength of Zthuue.

@Strat cost:
I'll link my other post from earlier thread here in a moment

Spoiler: show

For example, the strat bomber energy cost increase.

100k to 144k energy(NEARLY SAME AS RAS!), or 44% increase was, and is, NOT an acceptable solution to the problem of rushing strat bombers on t2 power income. We don't have strat rushes on t2 power anymore, AT ALL.This is not the point of balancing and improving the game, I'm sure we can all agree that the point is to have more meaningful choices.

The problem here was that the strat rush, while still having decently high risk, had game-breaking reward. The whole enemy team's powergrid was wiped and it was over. Just from one player risking their game for it this was obviously not balanced. But like with the hover, this one was an over-reaction as well. It led to the strategy completely disappearing from the game. And that was not it's only consequence. Once again there was a ripple effect to something else.

I'd like to talk about the airlock situation now. You manage to rush t3 air before your opponent and gather an asf force large enough to wipe out any opposing inties, and the few asf your enemy possibly has out. You manage to camp his air factory and force him to build sams. Now you wish to take advantage of your well-executed, high-risk, strategy, that you either sacrificed a teammate or your eco for.

What do you gain? You gain safety to your remaining teammates from air snipes and practically unlimited scouting, barring any aeon cruisers or sera sams. What else? You wish to build strats of course. Now you go and queue up your two strats for harassing. This means sacrificing even more of your eco AND risking your air control due to allowing your enemy to catch up. In the old 100k strat balance, this meant 4 asf(roll-off time reduces the 5,0 to 4) and 3 t2 mex. But with your early advantage in ASF and the damage you expect the strats to inflict this is OK.

Now with the 144k strat balance the exchange for 2 strats is 7 asf(7,2 minus roll-off time) and the same 3 t2 mex. Now early game airlock is usually 5-10 asf. It is obvious that the enemy having 7 allows him to contest your air-superiority(especially in his territory with radar!) and definitely allows him to shoot down your strats with relative ease. Suddenly the option of going strats for harassing isn't at all attractive. Unlimited scouting is very nice but teammates can be secured from airsnipes with inties, and especially swifties, as well. Sacrificing eco and going for an airlock is also less attractive as a result, especially as aeon.

So the end result was:
1. Eliminating a strategy completely, simplifying the game, reducing depth
2. Reducing the possible reward for an advanced, already risky strategy, making it less favourable, again, reducing meaningful choices and depth.
3. As a result of the two above, ecoing up and defending was once again made stronger.

This time the first was caused by the overreaction to the problem(44% increase.)
The second was also caused directly by the cost increase, but in a different situation than intended. Again, the bigger picture.
This time also the third result was unwanted, as it lead to a more static game, instead of a dynamic one.

There's also a fourth, more hidden result.
4. It buffed all land experimentals, and to lesser extent, navy

This is due to the increasing the cost of countering them with strats, the only flying normal(not experimental) unit that can deliver some form of DPS while the experimental is being guarded by masses of T2 MAA or some amount of T3 MAA.

Statistics: Posted by JoonasTo — 04 Sep 2017, 17:05

Re: Some Balance Suggestions

2017-09-04T15:41:34+02:00

Mephi wrote:
Fobos are already quite slow on water, imo the nerf would not change much, but limiting a unique tool even more.

You are generally a 1v1 player, but fobo's are retarded as f*** on teamgame water maps. They can break entire maps with their existence.

JoonasTo wrote:
nergy cost to 125k
*The current energy cost for strats is far too high to make them a viable option in most even games with ASF on the field, this would make them a slightly more viable option

Mephi wrote:
I agree, that their cost is ridiculously high. A rework towards lower cost but slower speed for example, would be an intersting path, because they are mostly a sniping tool atm.

I don't really get where this is coming from. Strats are more than viable. With air control they are still OP with almost no way to counter them. The high e cost is needed in the early t3 air stage to avoid strat rushes instantly ending the game because they cannot be countered, and later on it becomes negligible because you have a lot more e income.

Also most of the strats i see are used to kill pgens and mexes and very rarely you see attempted strat snipes on acu's because it is a very big gamble.

Statistics: Posted by Farmsletje — 04 Sep 2017, 15:41

Re: Some Balance Suggestions

2017-09-04T14:47:29+02:00

EARLY GAME AIR

JoonasTo wrote:
T1 Interceptor
Minimum speed down to 8

Bombers are already quite weak as long the opponent has some air. Therefore i dont think we need to nerf them.In case you really want to kill a bomber you can invest some micro to do so.

JoonasTo wrote:
T1 Mobile AA
HP: Nerf UEF and Seraphim HP to 260

I agree, that t1 maa with 360 hp is far too powerful. Although im not sure about the amount yet.

JoonasTo wrote:
Seraphim muzzle velocity buff
*It’s just too low to hit t2 bombers

Havent noticed this yet, but gonna test it, when i have access to FA again.

MIDDLE GAME

JoonasTo wrote:
T2 Flak
Speed: Increase speed across all factions to at least 3, preferably 3,5

Flaks have the same speed as the main t2 land unit for each faction. For example 3 for pillars and skyboxer, 2.7 for rhino and banger. Giving them more speed would lead to always having them in front of your army and nobody moves his army with attackmove, therefore the dummy weapon doesnt achieve anything. But it would still be good to have that feature in attackmove situations.
In my opinion t2 flak is overall in a good spot against t1 and t2 air. For the price of a t2 bomber you get a little less than 3 flaks and they stack up very well. Vs T3 is a different topic, but i dont think we should drasticly change their values to just improve them vs strats, which is their mainproblem.

T2 HQs

JoonasTo wrote:
T2 HQs
Make Air HQ more expensive

I havent notice a sudden increase of t2 air play, neither in 1v1, nor in teamgames. T2 air is always a more risky option, because you dont get a guaranted value like for t2 land. If you lose aircontrol for only a short time, which can happen easily, because your opponent can counter your t2 tech, while staying on t1 tech, you lose a big junk of your bombers and gunships.

If it should be the case, that t2 air becomes a lot more popular in all kinds of games, we can discuss this topic again.

JoonasTo wrote:
Make Land HQ cheaper

Their cost has been increased to extend the, that time not existend, t1 stage again. But it was probably a bit too much, because skipping t2 whilst spamming t1 is too strong atm. I think decreasing the cost a bit while adding that cost to t3 hq would be an option.
There is also a rework of OC in progress, which will mostlikely nerf it in that regard.

COMMANDERS

JoonasTo wrote:
Cybran Commander Stealth
Give the stealth commander 25 regen with 500/10k cost

My opinion on that topic is probably a bit biased, but i agree, that cyb acus are too weak in direct combat.

JoonasTo wrote:
Aeon Commander Shield

Currently i have the feeling, that the upgrade is rather a bit too strong. But have to take a closer look.

JoonasTo wrote:
Zhtuue
Speed on water to 2,4-2,2

Fobos are already quite slow on water, imo the nerf would not change much, but limiting a unique tool even more.

JoonasTo wrote:
Wagner
Speed to 3,3 underwater

The use of wagners is already limited compared to their hover counterparts. Their role in connection with water is ambushing and raiding, a speednerf would hurt them quite a bit.

LATE GAME AIR

JoonasTo wrote:
Restorer
Increase AA damage by 33-50% OR increase it’s speed by 3-4

Nice idea. Restos are a joke AA wise atm.

JoonasTo wrote:
Strategic Bombers
Energy cost to 125k

I agree, that their cost is ridiculously high. A rework towards lower cost but slower speed for example, would be an intersting path, because they are mostly a sniping tool atm.

ECONOMY

JoonasTo wrote:
Mass Fabs

Personally i dont have an opinion about massfabs.

Eco/production buildings

JoonasTo wrote:
Extra vision radius for Aeon

Good idea to increase faction diversity. Adding radar would also be an option.

JoonasTo wrote:
Seraphim eco/production buildings need a specialty
→ Factories could store more mass than other factions’ do

That would be also a nice feature, but the use is very limited. Maybe give them the radar feature on some buildings like factories and mexes.

JoonasTo wrote:
PS. Make Titans worth it please.

they get some love in the t3 rebalance

Statistics: Posted by Mephi — 04 Sep 2017, 14:47

Re: Some Balance Suggestions

2017-09-04T12:13:02+02:00

Titans have less range than loyas so you can safely kite them, the speed difference between them would be less than that of the Striker and Aurora and we all know how that goes.

Also need to remember that if their HP were to be dropped to half and damage buffed they'd get obliterated by loyas thanks to the range advantage.

Statistics: Posted by JoonasTo — 04 Sep 2017, 12:13

Re: Some Balance Suggestions

2017-09-04T11:42:35+02:00

Shouldn't be faster than loya if you go the route of buffing them. Brick is basically hard countered by percy, loya needs to really do the same sort of thing to the titan. Keep them slightly slower than loya so the loya will be able to kite them and crush them imo.

Seriously could you imagine how OP UEF would be if they have the strongest battle tank and then a raiding unit faster than loya? We'd be entering old Cybran levels of stronk.

Also the idea of them being amphibious would do absolutely nothing for the unit.

Statistics: Posted by FtXCommando — 04 Sep 2017, 11:42

Re: Some Balance Suggestions

2017-09-04T11:11:21+02:00

How about making Titans amphibious? Would allow for more flexible raiding and maybe ambushes. Hiding in ponds, circumventing defenses. Useless on some maps, though.

Statistics: Posted by Yakmann — 04 Sep 2017, 11:11

Re: Some Balance Suggestions

2017-09-04T10:18:07+02:00

JoonasTo wrote:
A very simple move for Titans would be to give them double damage and cut down their health to 500(so 1,7k with shields, 50% of current.) This way you have a unit that keeps the same combat power as it currently has(with the same total damage output before death.) It would also give more importance to the shield of the unit(which can regenerate out of combat.) This way it can deal damage fast enough on raids but still not get too strong vs most armies.

Down the line I'd like to see it get a speed boost to 4,5(currently at 4 with Loyalist) and the shield regen rate see a buff to 40hp/s(shield regen only works out of combat btw. Recharge works during combat too.) This would further specialise the unit for raiding purposes as it could outrun other ground units and easily regain lost HP when it gets out of trouble(as long as the player doesn't screw up and let it lose all shields.)

PS.The health to damage change will buff them vs ACUs as the overcharge still kills only one at a time so the damage vs commanders is effectively doubled with no downside. That could be a problem.

...that is exactly a T3 LAB, no health at all, big damage and low survivality, if i,m about to spend mass raiding something, ill spend it in percies that will destroy stuff in their way and has more chances to still alive, to raid undefended bases and ACUs in that way, the Titan we have now its ok

Statistics: Posted by NapSpan — 04 Sep 2017, 10:18

Re: Some Balance Suggestions

2017-09-04T09:35:27+02:00

A very simple move for Titans would be to give them double damage and cut down their health to 500(so 1,7k with shields, 50% of current.) This way you have a unit that keeps the same combat power as it currently has(with the same total damage output before death.) It would also give more importance to the shield of the unit(which can regenerate out of combat.) This way it can deal damage fast enough on raids but still not get too strong vs most armies.

Down the line I'd like to see it get a speed boost to 4,5(currently at 4 with Loyalist) and the shield regen rate see a buff to 40hp/s(shield regen only works out of combat btw. Recharge works during combat too.) This would further specialise the unit for raiding purposes as it could outrun other ground units and easily regain lost HP when it gets out of trouble(as long as the player doesn't screw up and let it lose all shields.)

PS.The health to damage change will buff them vs ACUs as the overcharge still kills only one at a time so the damage vs commanders is effectively doubled with no downside. That could be a problem.

Statistics: Posted by JoonasTo — 04 Sep 2017, 09:35

Re: Some Balance Suggestions

2017-09-03T00:17:16+02:00

JoonasTo wrote:
I'm thinking you make the titans proper T3 labs. Fast to build, decent damage, great speed, no survivability in a stand up fight.

No exactly, Pillars are not T2 LABs but the other point its true, its more important balance Aeon T2 and sera T3 first, Titans being the "weakness" of UEF its not true, by the same rule Cybran T3 its perfect because both Brick and Loya are pretty good

Statistics: Posted by NapSpan — 03 Sep 2017, 00:17

Re: Some Balance Suggestions

2017-09-02T22:01:18+02:00

I'm thinking you make the titans proper T3 labs. Fast to build, decent damage, great speed, no survivability in a stand up fight.

Statistics: Posted by JoonasTo — 02 Sep 2017, 22:01

Re: Some Balance Suggestions

2017-09-02T21:39:23+02:00

It is incredibly hard to balance titans because UEF already has the strongest t3 unit in the game and also one of the best t2 units. Pillar/lobo/parashield armies are still good in the early stages of t3. Because of all of this even a slight buff will make the only weakness in UEF land disappear. If you compare this to the terrible aeon t2 stage or the sera t3 stage then i think it's better if the balance team focusses on that first.

Statistics: Posted by Farmsletje — 02 Sep 2017, 21:39