Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Beta patch discussion - and asfs

2020-05-03T04:52:46+02:00

Hello everyone,
my name is Hummelprinz, i've got around 1500 global and 1300 ladderating and i played Seraphim for over 1000 games. The patch states that the changes to the Seraphim Sniperbot deserve a nerv because it is choosen over the battletank. The Sniperbot isn't that good, it is only usefull in a handfull situations. The only reason people build more of them is because the tank is unplayable bad. The only Situation where you can build it it is when you need their hitpoints to prevent yourself from getting overrun. The problem is that they are giant, slow and have low range.
And now this patch makes this even worse. Less hp, less range, bigger hitbox. Okey the aoe now allows the tank to defeat t1 pointdefenses. But nobody builds an T3 tank to defeat an T1-pointdefense. The 0.1 more speed do nothing.
It would be understandable if you say "Okey the bad battletank is a factionweakness". But then do not nerv all alternatives. The arty and the sniperbot must be good to compensate for the bad tank.
If you want to make him to be good as a standalone then he needs a range and hpbuff. Percys and Bricks do have 32range to fire all their landweapons, that is 150% of the Seratank. The Harb has 27(this patch)(135%). You'll get never in range to stand a chance as long the enemy is not walking in your direction.
30range for the mainweapon and 26 for the 2guns and getting some more hp(5850, so he has not less hp per mass then the t2bot) would make him pickable.

greetings Hummelprinz

Statistics: Posted by Hummelprinz — 03 May 2020, 04:52

Re: Beta patch discussion - and asfs

2020-04-24T16:42:58+02:00

i will only talk about what i've been handling

nebs wrote:
I am looking at the Sera ACU changes, and I while I know it would be a bit unpopular, I really think to be more balanced and also shake up
the game play, it would instead be better to move the T2/T3 upgrade to the right arm, so it is either/or with the gun, same as the other
double gun factions. This preserves the option for T2 and restoration field to make a navy support com more viable. It also means the double RAS factions do need to sacrifice the survivability options the back upgrades give as a trade-off. It actually does make factions more diverse since it differentiates from the UEF com which doesn't get the extra gun, tacpac sera com couldn't take gun so would be a bit more vulnerable.

I do understand your proposal, which would achieve several goal :
1 - stack up tech + regen field when using it to support naval
2 - you don't need to remove tech later on, to vet your exp
3 - can't stack nano + ARAS

Even if i agree that those are good points, i would limit their impact on the game
1 - regen field was found to be really good with naval (thus we are limiting its bonus on naval). On top of that you can't stack the tech. The idea is pretty simple, you keep your ACU in your shipyard, and bring back from front the low hp destro. But you can pay for the nano (timing is later than the tech) and support your units on the front line.
2 - This is annoying, but not dramatic imo. (still worth it to drop tech to regen exp)
3 - This is imo a non-issue. If you reach the state where you want some extra protection on your com while being in your base (so late game where you get the double nano, because why not), then having or not the ARAS isn't important anymore. We are reaching income where the ARAS won't matter much.

What was intended is that, when you want to do a push, you need to choose between getting the regen field or the T2 upgrade. One will support your units and act perfectly in synergy with the gun; while the other one will allow you, on top of getting extra hp, to build radar on front line, AA in emergency, PD to secure the reclaim, or to start a arty fire base in range of your opponent base after taking a good position.

nebs wrote:
For a while the sera and aeon T2 and T3 engies had a small build power buff since no hives or kennels. it would be nice as a nod to Sup com history to give the range buff just to them and not the other factions (and yes, faction diversity!)

I think balance team once decided to implement engies station for other faction. It give too much of an advantage in certain situation; while being useless in others. If you start buff T2/T3 engie to compensate, you would just create imbalance in the situation where engies station aren't good. As for your proposal, it doesn't compensate the engie station advantage at all; introduction of engie station for the late T4 stage (mavor & co.) seems the only way to balance these situations.

nebs wrote:
Speaking of ASF, the build cost reduction, without cost increase, means more mass and power income for the air player to spend, on more air BP even if they wish, so i think it will have limited effect. They are already pretty cheap mass wise, and the air player soon often ends up with mass to spare so just ecos as air engagements can be easily avoided. so air player=eco player most games it would be good to break this up by increasing T3 air cost (specifically ASF).

For now they are only getting a speed nerf, we will look into more change in the next patches

Statistics: Posted by keyser — 24 Apr 2020, 16:42

Re: Beta patch discussion - and asfs

2020-04-24T14:56:07+02:00

(split to get around spam filter)

Fire beetle changes look great and i can't wait to see the radar and visual range interaction it will create

For a while the sera and aeon T2 and T3 engies had a small build power buff since no hives or kennels. it would be nice as a nod to Sup com history
to give the range buff just to them and not the other factions (and yes, faction diversity!)

I think the swiftie cost increase is too much, especially with the T2 air factory HQ. in so many games i see swifties having a limited impact
because spamming inties is cheap and easy and it can take a while for the swiftie numbers to build up, then T3 air is not far away and they become redundant fast
since they lose so hard to ASF. with this change they are over 4 times intie mass cost and the ASF is only 50% more...power cost is less an issue with both higher efficiency and adjacency discounts.

Speaking of ASF, the build cost reduction, without cost increase, means more mass and power income for the air player to spend, on more air BP even if they wish,
so i think it will have limited effect. They are already pretty cheap mass wise, and the air player soon often ends up with mass to spare so just ecos
as air engagements can be easily avoided. so air player=eco player most games it would be good to break this up by increasing T3 air cost (specifically ASF).

Anyway think that was it i can get back to my tequila, this is looking like a great patch with the buffs and changes, much thanks to everyone who keeps this show going!

Statistics: Posted by nebs — 24 Apr 2020, 14:56

Re: Beta patch discussion - and asfs

2020-04-24T14:54:27+02:00

Hi Sup Com forums

Yeah first post maybe sticking my neck out a bit but whatever.

I am looking at the Sera ACU changes, and I while I know it would be a bit unpopular, I really think to be more balanced and also shake up
the game play, it would instead be better to move the T2/T3 upgrade to the right arm, so it is either/or with the gun, same as the other
double gun factions. This preserves the option for T2 and restoration field to make a navy support com more viable. It also means the double RAS
factions do need to sacrifice the survivability options the back upgrades give as a trade-off. It actually does make factions more diverse
since it differentiates from the UEF com which doesn't get the extra gun, tacpac sera com couldn't take gun so would be a bit more vulnerable.

Having to activate an ability on the loyas seems out of place, especially when sup com micro is more about the movement, since few other RTS have
real dodging of basic attacks, and arranging your units positioning for a better engagement. The ACU of course has a few more abilities but that is only one unit.
A toggle might be doable, similar to stealth etc.

That said, the change to the percie to reduce its alpha but keeping the loyas hps as they currently are would mean they don't get two-shot and would get
a better chance to close and stun normally, especially from the flanks, without needing a fancy new activated ability. And let them keep half their dps buff on
the bolters. This way they regain competitiveness vs other factions and lose less hard once percy numbers grow, ideally you would want to be building them (and titans) first on most maps / match ups in the early T3 stage so they get their time to shine.

Statistics: Posted by nebs — 24 Apr 2020, 14:54

Re: Beta patch discussion - and asfs

2020-04-21T12:59:12+02:00

Wesmania wrote:
Ithilis_Quo wrote:The personal cloak is big thing, even if you can't imagine now it can possibly roll pretty hard.
Cybran have one small underused unit that is called "mole" t1 land scout, that also have a personal cloak and is super cheap. What means you should build 4 moles to single beetles to jammerize your enemy and do serious damage. Also with deceiver they are full invisible, deciver is very cheap and you should not have only one, that mean you will easily deliver hight damage into enemy army that he will not even notice what is going on until everything explode.

I guess the mole stuff matters for manual ACU targeting, assuming that he doesn't have fast rate of fire units with him that can vaporize moles immediately. I'm also not buying that "the enemy won't see it coming" argument, if I have the micro capacity to target enemy units with every single one of my beetles, then my opponent is probably capable of reacting to it. Lone charging deceivers are a very good giveaway. And again, T3 armies have too much vision and DPS for that to still be effective.

single beetle is enought to serious damage your whole T1/T2 army. so if you miss one of them, you most probably will have a problem. Units target priority is from T3>T2>T1 so when you have some T3 in army units will shoot them first and not prioritize on beetles, what mean you must manual target them and gess with one is mole and with beetle. Deciver have 26r (?) what is quite a lot and give beetles enought time to come closer. One crucial think is stil lmissing, and thta is explode even when are destroyed, not only on manual lauch. But you know.. its classic balance team, take some good stuff, but break it to some worse version to be not so obvious, from where this ideas comes from.

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 21 Apr 2020, 12:59

Re: Beta patch discussion - and asfs

2020-04-21T09:56:34+02:00

Ithilis_Quo wrote:
The personal cloak is big thing, even if you can't imagine now it can possibly roll pretty hard.
Cybran have one small underused unit that is called "mole" t1 land scout, that also have a personal cloak and is super cheap. What means you should build 4 moles to single beetles to jammerize your enemy and do serious damage. Also with deceiver they are full invisible, deciver is very cheap and you should not have only one, that mean you will easily deliver hight damage into enemy army that he will not even notice what is going on until everything explode.

I guess the mole stuff matters for manual ACU targeting, assuming that he doesn't have fast rate of fire units with him that can vaporize moles immediately. I'm also not buying that "the enemy won't see it coming" argument, if I have the micro capacity to target enemy units with every single one of my beetles, then my opponent is probably capable of reacting to it. Lone charging deceivers are a very good giveaway. And again, T3 armies have too much vision and DPS for that to still be effective.

Statistics: Posted by Wesmania — 21 Apr 2020, 09:56

Re: Beta patch discussion - and asfs

2020-04-21T00:09:15+02:00

The personal cloak is big thing, even if you can't imagine now it can possibly roll pretty hard.
Cybran have one small underused unit that is called "mole" t1 land scout, that also have a personal cloak and is super cheap. What means you should build 4 moles to single beetles to jammerize your enemy and do serious damage. Also with deceiver they are full invisible, deciver is very cheap and you should not have only one, that mean you will easily deliver hight damage into enemy army that he will not even notice what is going on until everything explode.

this is very good change (and you know.. its in eq for like 4 years:D )

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 21 Apr 2020, 00:09

Re: Beta patch discussion - and asfs

2020-04-20T21:22:43+02:00

At worst beetle changes don't matter, it's not like they were ever used seriously in the past few years.

Statistics: Posted by LabPunk — 20 Apr 2020, 21:22

Re: Beta patch discussion - and asfs

2020-04-20T15:32:50+02:00

What's the reasoning behind beetle changes?

- Cloak is only useful when coupled with a deceiver, radar coverage is usually better than vision coverage. I guess you can use that against smaller T2 armies, with the deceiver giving you a bit more time before beetles leave stealth range or the deceiver gets killed. With cloak you can also conceal your T2 army's real strength, though I'm not sure if just having more T2 tanks or Hoplites isn't a better option.
- Other than that, what other scenario is there? T1 armies are not worth beetling, T3 armies can kill beetles before they can reach them, even with deceivers, ACUs have omni and can kill beetles faster now. Economy killing via drops is less feasible, it's probably better to drop Cybran arties at this point. Stealthed army approach isn't any better with beetles, since deceivers can't be cloaked.

With this change, beetles get obsoleted after T2 even more while becoming hardly more effective against T2 armies (as explosion damage got nerfed more than cost did). If we're terrified of beetles becoming a com snipe tool again, why not make beetles deal DoT? Just like the mercy proposal, it'd allow ACUs to just move out of harm's way, while allowing for more tactical beetle uses than sending them off towards a tank and praying that pathfinding gets it there before it dies. Hell, you could even give it snipe / AoE / duration explosion presets.

Statistics: Posted by Wesmania — 20 Apr 2020, 15:32

Re: Beta patch discussion - and asfs

2020-04-16T08:57:13+02:00

this is just a beautiful patch,it's really needed for asfs to get a nerf and some modificartions for the actual t3 and t4,personally i was waiting long enough for the czar to be changed as well,i can feel a playable aeon at least now

Statistics: Posted by Resistance — 16 Apr 2020, 08:57

Re: Beta patch discussion - and asfs

2020-04-15T22:08:49+02:00

I also like how the imba t3 arty nerfs, cybran and sera nerfed most, UEF less, Aeon basically not.

Statistics: Posted by LabPunk — 15 Apr 2020, 22:08

Re: Beta patch discussion - and asfs

2020-04-15T14:04:48+02:00

There is much more balance issue, that is making whiteout understanding how this game codewise work.
Its kinda pointless to make some note what all is wrong with future balance patch, but whatever.
___________________--

- obsidian is better, but still, need acu firing priority to fix the main problem with obsidian, and that is dying to easily to OC whiteout possibility to spread them on the field.

- pillar, rhino range change this numbers don't follow any pattern, it just make total mesh on a place were was some beauty. Why 22/24 range? Where is the reasoning behind it ? Or why not 22,8range ? Units should have some range pattern. This is totally random, with hope that it will somehow work. Yes it will, probably, maybe, hopefully... this is not how professional should work.

- Riptide, this unit has a problem with dps that is different as should be - as should be i mean as was think it will be when was balanced. As i remember its 90dps, where it calculate as if its 120dps, Because this unit have weird x,5 dpg, and super fast firing pattern numbers go wrong on 0,1sec tick. This change will help, but the main problem is ignored, or probably not ignored but the balance "team" probably not even know that there is this problem.

- Rhino mass cost 290m This is a joke or serious? 7m cost discount ? Did they know why this unit the same as pillar cost this mount of mass ? Its because drain pattern to drain constant number and not some 5,7624 -> that show as 5. This only shows how little balance team understands why units have stats as they have.

- Blaze buff is nice.. of course, but still, this is not main problem what baze have, its moving issue that is retarded, and guess what fixed in equilibrium, ready to just copy it (and give credit)

- Firebeetle, haha. basicly they remove this unit from the game, and now there is some attempt on how to bring it back. I remember how much hate equilibrium clooked beetle gets. And now theay make the same It took some time, but gj. But these numbers are raterded. 190m cost ? Why not 182,6mass? Where did you come with these numbers ? I know where, put something into the calculator and get it there, but this is not how professional should work. 200m and adeqate e and bt, please.

- Harbringer - Rate of fire is retarded, its nice to have 1,85fr but at all its same as 2 and whole balance is make on something that has the same problem as the riptide. Seriously why this ppl do balance when obviously not understand the game?

- outhum area damage on the main cannon is huuuuuuuge mistake. Its long-range cannon and it mean outhum sometime do double damage, depend on pathfinding that is all time problem.

- sniper, ppl chose sniper ower main tanks its becasue you put them on that position. use main tanks is far more fun as long-range slow snipers. Buff of main tanks is the solution. At least harbringer is super shit, compared to others, and this buff will not solve it. Pro tip, think about the price that comes with energy maintaince. thats +- 40m cost to unit basicly for nothing.

- spectre, this firing pattern and damage.. its obvious how they come with this numbers, just calculator to have same dps, but it should not be only like that.

- veterancy change - whole veterancy concept is basically copypast from equilibrium, while they arbitrary change some stats to make it worse. And now after 3 years, they change it back welcome!

You can save 3 years if lisen. And you can save them also now...

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 15 Apr 2020, 14:04

Re: Beta patch discussion - and asfs

2020-04-15T12:19:33+02:00

they dont? 4head

Statistics: Posted by Farmsletje — 15 Apr 2020, 12:19

Re: Beta patch discussion - and asfs

2020-04-15T12:11:45+02:00

And so we are back to ye olde Harbinger rush of doom.

Dont know what to make of the Percy changes. They already roflstomp Bricks anyway.

Statistics: Posted by Sovietpride — 15 Apr 2020, 12:11

Re: Beta patch discussion - and asfs

2020-04-15T05:28:32+02:00

So the Percy change is actually good in regards to cleaning up fire rate mistakes, but the Harb change is very misleading. A 1.85 fire rate is the same as a 2.0 fire rate. 1/1.85 = 0.540540 and 1/2 = 0.5, both are equal to 5 ticks between shots when truncated to the nearest tick. I think it is very bad to choose some arbitrary 1.85 fire rate number and put it in the patch notes and blueprint since it will make everyone (and the unit DB) think it has less DPS than it really does, 296 vs 320.

Statistics: Posted by ThomasHiatt — 15 Apr 2020, 05:28