Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Radical Balance Ideas

2019-12-07T16:18:11+02:00

Faction Overhaul Part 2

Seraphim Idea

How about more Lightning. Ythotha should get a chain lightning gun that goes through multiple units and deals 5k dmg, long reload. Lightning tank becomes the main battle tank for T3 as well as AA. Othuums move back to become the support tank, they now shoot Lightning Beams and have a secondary gun that shoots the chicken's gatling weapon. Ahwassa drops 2 bombs and are faster, they also get an interesting lightning shield that has a 40% chance of reflecting any aa shots back at the structure or unit that shot at it. Illsavohs are a little faster. Yolona OSS Damage radius gets a buff. Battleship gets removed and we're buffing t3 subs massively. T2 Destoryers get buffed and become the main combat unit for both phases of t2 and t3. T1 Sub torp defense gets a buff too. Seraphim strats get homing.

Aeon Idea

Aeon Harbinger get a HP and Shield Buff and are much faster. Auroras get there own small radar little bit longer there actual attack range. Blazes get a dmg buff and we're fixing there fucking pathfinding. Absolver get a purely dmg buff. Sniper bots get a tiny bit of dmg and range buff as well as lowering the reload time. Aeon shields can now be upgraded from t2 to t3 but their shield radius is smaller and less hp. Mobile Shields get buffed and Aeon gets a T3 Mobile Shield that has a shield radius when in this shield radius the specific unit gets a 3k shield if u already have a shield then that shield gets buffed. Battleships get longer range and higher rate of fire. Torrents gets massive Volley of TMLs and have higher aoe and high on each tac. T2 Destoryer gets a shield. GC gets a health buff and laser now as much more AOE. Unit grab now fires more and it can throw back units and deal massive aoe dmg. CZAR becomes a extremely expensive unit with multiple death beams and its DMG is buffed. Salvation now fires a volley of 5 shoots with extremely accuracy and a tiny dmg buff. Paragon gets nerfed from 10k mass to 5k mass, 1m E to 500k E. Restorers get a slight damage buff.

Statistics: Posted by Azraeel — 07 Dec 2019, 16:18

Re: Radical Balance Ideas

2019-12-07T15:53:51+02:00

Biass these are my opinions not facts... Also yea i know Megalith was a different but i had that in mind because the mega was suppose to be the beast.

Statistics: Posted by Azraeel — 07 Dec 2019, 15:53

Re: Radical Balance Ideas

2019-12-07T12:00:45+02:00

Azraeel wrote:
The UEF are the Highest HP Faction, and the Turtle Faction.

UEF are not a turtle faction, making them a turtle faction will render them the "bad" faction, do not make the UEF a turtle faction, furthermore do not make any faction unable to do anything besides one solid playstyle, that's why seraphim are seen as the worst faction.

Anyway:

Azraeel wrote:
should

Azraeel wrote:
they're commander should

Azraeel wrote:
also should

Azraeel wrote:
should

Azraeel wrote:
needs

Azraeel wrote:
also needs

Azraeel wrote:
need

Azraeel wrote:
needs

Azraeel wrote:
has

Azraeel wrote:
can

Azraeel wrote:
gets

Azraeel wrote:
Cybran Commander gets

Azraeel wrote:
Loyalist have

Azraeel wrote:
should get

Azraeel wrote:
It should also get

Azraeel wrote:
It also has

Azraeel wrote:
should

Azraeel wrote:
get

Why? To change something? Why change it? You never state what these ideas are supposed to do, and if they will even provide a benefit to your objectives. You only claim that they "need" it, for what reason or purpose?

For example, you state you want to improve the faction diversity and then say to remove a faction specific unit, which is contradictory.
Making the Megalith; not a stealth unit: have more HP in an attempt to make cybran more stealthy is also contradictory.

Spur of the moment theorycrafting never gets anywhere, please try harder.

Statistics: Posted by biass — 07 Dec 2019, 12:00

Re: Radical Balance Ideas

2019-12-07T06:32:53+02:00

Faction Overhaul

UEF Idea

The UEF are the Highest HP Faction, and the Turtle Faction. Faction Diversity has disappeared except for the HP difference but why not truly make all Factions different. Lets start off with UEF. The UEF should get a balanced Experimental Shield. They should also get a health buff to the Fatboy. PD should be cheaper for the UEF and also they're commander should get a 3rd Upgrade to the shield, that shields units in a area with a straight 1k shield (small radius) option. UEF also should get a TML buff with more AOE on there tacs. T3 Strat Bomber replaced with a T3 Janus with bombs that drop and explode into huge napalm fields. Summit should get a bigger model and a omni. Neptune needs to get Railguns instead of Lasers, Neptune also needs a personal shield of 5k HP. Remove Shield boat, and give Destoryers more health. More Torp boats submarines.

Cybran Idea

The Cybran need to be a purely stealth faction low hp high DPS. Monkeylord gets Cloak, lower HP, and Higher DPS and better AA. Mantis need tiny speed buff and higher dps lower HP. Bouncer and t1 MAA needs projectiles velocity increased as well as cruiser. Stealth boat has cloak and has large radius on its stealth field. Destoryers can move faster on land and have tiny bit more range. T3 Battleship gets more AOE and Stealth. Cybran Commander gets less health but has stealth right as the bat. Loyalist have Stealth and a range of stun around them, also higher DPS and a little bit faster. Megalith should get more HP and range. It should also get tiny reclaim bots that auto reclaim and feed it health. It also has stealth. Scathis should become a faster rapid deployment close range t4 barrage artillery with cloak. Rocket Bots get bigger DPS and range with stealth.

(I'll add Aeon and Sera TMR)

Statistics: Posted by Azraeel — 07 Dec 2019, 06:32

Re: Radical Balance Ideas

2019-11-18T22:07:34+02:00

Quant wrote:
My idea is to buff aeon.

Thanks for your time.

True. Such a weak faction.

Statistics: Posted by Little Miss Murder — 18 Nov 2019, 22:07

Re: Radical Balance Ideas

2019-11-17T05:23:11+02:00

My idea is to buff aeon.

Thanks for your time.

Statistics: Posted by Quant — 17 Nov 2019, 05:23

Re: Radical Balance Ideas

2019-11-16T01:50:50+02:00

As for now Carriers are something like T3 antiair

What about making them actualy air force navi

As I see it:
Carriers carry and rebuild at 30-80% cost a bunch of T2 gunships (Atlantis T3)
Carriers have 200 range 0 damage weapon
This gunships assist carriers at attack (Like UEF drones assist ACUs)

Increase cost of carriers
Differencies of gunships already will lead to faction divercity

Statistics: Posted by advena — 16 Nov 2019, 01:50

Re: Radical Balance Ideas

2019-11-15T21:03:05+02:00

Little Miss Murder wrote:
Some very good ideas in this thread.

I particularly like the idea of limiting aircraft range. You'd have to capture territory, like islands and the like, in order to construct air facilities so as to advance the offensive range of you aircraft. I think aircraft that run out of fuel should not just crash - it'll become a micro nightmare. Just make them head straight back to the nearest air fac or staging at reduced speed like currently at the end of any order you give them, unless that order is to land. Or even unresponsive to any orders. If there are no air facilities left, then they explode. You can treat weaponry and fuel as the same thing - some sort of energy store. Firing weapons simply bites chunks out of your fuel. When you are bingo fuel, you can't fire. Units with repair capabilities should be able to refuel them in the field, but at a low efficiency, making the capture of territory in order to advance air range imperative.

I also feel that intelligence is far too easy to come by and it is just way hard to keep a secret. Sometimes impossible. I would cut radar and sonar ranges in half and greatly reduce the vision radius of scout aircraft.

not a fan of limited range aircraft ...
i mean that sounds kinda like starcraft or Red Alert 2-esque style carriers, and those being as a stationary facilty what´s the difference between these and stationary defense or building up firebases?
sure add limited weaponcapacity via ammo/power that either gets only rearmed on pads or rearms very slowly for say bombers were AAunits and gunships have a bit more ammocapacity and rearm slightly faster over bombers ..

Statistics: Posted by MrTBSC — 15 Nov 2019, 21:03

Re: Radical Balance Ideas

2019-11-15T20:41:49+02:00

Some very good ideas in this thread.

I particularly like the idea of limiting aircraft range. You'd have to capture territory, like islands and the like, in order to construct air facilities so as to advance the offensive range of you aircraft. I think aircraft that run out of fuel should not just crash - it'll become a micro nightmare. Just make them head straight back to the nearest air fac or staging at reduced speed like currently at the end of any order you give them, unless that order is to land. Or even unresponsive to any orders. If there are no air facilities left, then they explode. You can treat weaponry and fuel as the same thing - some sort of energy store. Firing weapons simply bites chunks out of your fuel. When you are bingo fuel, you can't fire. Units with repair capabilities should be able to refuel them in the field, but at a low efficiency, making the capture of territory in order to advance air range imperative.

I also feel that intelligence is far too easy to come by and it is just way hard to keep a secret. Sometimes impossible. I would cut radar and sonar ranges in half and greatly reduce the vision radius of scout aircraft.

Statistics: Posted by Little Miss Murder — 15 Nov 2019, 20:41

Re: Radical Balance Ideas

2019-11-15T19:47:07+02:00

crazy ideas?

nerf t2/t3 structure HP
nerf shields
nerf range of t3 artillery, decrease cost and increase buildspeed to compensate

nerf t2/t3/T4X assaultunit HP

why all this?

to try and keep the whole unitpool relevant till lategame ...
avoid lategame becoming a shield+artillery siege slugfest were the number of mobile units used decreases to almost nonexistance

increase cost and durability of airunits .. at the very least change aircraft particularly AA aircraft to not be so nummerous while keeping its effectivness ..

FtXCommando wrote:
New units do not keep things “fresh” but they certainly destroy the entire point of the FAF project.

what would that be? to keep the game stagnant?

Statistics: Posted by MrTBSC — 15 Nov 2019, 19:47

Re: Radical Balance Ideas

2019-11-11T19:21:04+02:00

AIRCRAFT OVERHAUL

In order to better blend air, land, and sea. while also nerfing air spam in some ways:

Dramatically lower fuel times, 70-90% of all non transports and bombers. Enough that you are REQUIRED to use air staging facilities/carriers to project to other areas of the map.

I would also increase time to refuel for staging facilities, the key is to have diminishing returns for large airforces because the extra planes will just be waiting to refuel.

This would also buff air experimental, as you would be forced to have a reserve force ready to intercept it.

then the question becomes why not bombers? bombing targets outside of your escorts range means your bombers are very likely to get intercepted and shot down.

then TML air staging snipes to cripple your ability to keep your air ready

Statistics: Posted by randall172 — 11 Nov 2019, 19:21

Re: Radical Balance Ideas

2018-10-30T13:49:09+02:00

Turinturambar wrote:
did you also make EQ lab stun concept?

That useless ability is not my sin. EQ lab stun is just 1 sec so it only affects DPS of Mantis, Mechmarine and Riptide, only usefull to throw these to let Hoplites escape.

Statistics: Posted by Apofenas — 30 Oct 2018, 13:49

Re: Radical Balance Ideas

2018-10-30T00:19:51+02:00

I admit balance is a tough thing to get right. This is more so when a game relies on asymmetric factions for play variety. On a balanced map, faction A versus faction A is symmetric war. Faction A versus Faction B, C or D is asymmetric war (and so on with the other combinations). At the same time, FA and FAF have so much unit variety that even Faction A versus Faction A never turns out to be symmetrical in practice anyway. There are so many development paths and so many tactical trumping (rock, paper, scissors) relationships.

FAF probably has to follow the iterative refinement path now. Therefore, I admit (after the discussions above), that radical re-balancing belongs in mods not in FAF. What remains relevant for FAF then are the arguments of "fix broken and unused units" and "ensure each faction fulfills its mission". That second statement relates to the comments on the claimed weakness of Cybran drops (for example). If units are broken or if they are not performing to specification and fulfilling their mission (e.g. firebeetles for sniping) then there is a case for re-working / re-balancing them.

I think the T3 mobile AA is a good implementation. This is provided it works and is not OP. I say leave it in the game and make sure it is fully functional and balanced.

Footnote: I have other ideas on economic/military balance and tactical/strategic balance. These ideas belong in a mod (maybe mine if I can make it). I will start another thread on that topic. I will put it in the Mods section as it will essential be a discussion for mod ideas.

Statistics: Posted by Crazy Cossack — 30 Oct 2018, 00:19

Re: Radical Balance Ideas

2018-10-30T00:13:12+02:00

when you here talking about crazy ideas, I have some of my own

you know factions are kinda mess, cyb has T1 bot, T2 tank, UEF has T1 T2 tank T3 bot, just so weird, so I was thinking, balance team love diverzity

so UEF would be full tank faction, Cybran would be full bot, Aeon full hover, hover Harbi , Sera I have no idea , you know diverzity

another crazy idea was, Cyb and UEF dont have T1 hover so playing small water map is more difficult, so what about make Mantis jump? you know it would jump and slowly flying toward target location unable to change target location and killable by AA and Air , UEF T1 tank would be like wagner

it is not suggestion for balance, just some thought

Statistics: Posted by ZeRen — 30 Oct 2018, 00:13

Re: Radical Balance Ideas

2018-10-29T22:56:38+02:00

I get the feeling the sarcasm in my post was not clearly conveyed.

Statistics: Posted by moonbearonmeth — 29 Oct 2018, 22:56