Rebalance suggestions

[Varaxis]

Just some suggestions to help bring back some flow and more strategies to the game through tuning the balance and addressing some questionable strategies. Also some suggestions to make some units more viable, that were considered ineffective/useless for their cost and build time (not to mention the significant investments needed to even access them), or were largely neglected due to clunky game mechanics.

Engineer rebalance:

T1 engineer build radius 3 (original build rate of 5)
T2 eng build radius 6 build rate 12
T3 eng build radius 10 build rate 30
SCU build radius 25 build rate 75.

SCU changes: basic upgrade costs reduced to be more reasonable. Reduce it's build bp capacity to be like the sparky's. Make it front line worthy, either with a focus on combat killing spam, army support (AA, shield, stealth, and/or siege), reclaiming areas of the map. Right arm upgrades costing ~500m for either rapid fab (expands build bps to build stuff like mass extractors, pgen, factories, exp, and nuke defense, with at least a build rate of 90) or ground weapons (range/dps/splash upgrade). Left arm upgrades costing ~1000m for either RAS, torp/water vision/omni/sonar/anti-torp, or secondary ground weapon or ground util (shield breaker, emp, etc). Back with utility costing ~1000m, like AA/vision/omni/radar/TMD (firebase support package), stealth field->personal cloak when stationary, shield bubble, siege weapon (TML, cluster missiles, or arty), move speed+Nano (combat agility), etc. The costs should be cheap enough to eagerly pursue being fully upgraded, but expensive enough to make switching over from Engineering spec to combat spec an unwise move--previous upgrade costs like 2100m, 75000e for rapid fab and 2500m for a weak RAS boost were retarded, esp considering the SCU already costs 9000m.

Or maybe just have 2 diff types of SCU buildable from the gateway. One engineering type without weapons and passive stuff, like RAS, sensor, shield, stealth, move speed, etc. and one that's like a sparky, with weapons and limited build options.

T1 eng reduced build radius might come with some complaining, when going after early mex for people who are used to efficiently using move + build queue to minimize wasted time from moving and stopping. I figure it helps reduce the amount of T1 eng you can fit around t1 factory or experimental and most T1 blue prints are very small in size (besides fac, but to start a fac, just a corner of it needs to be barely within the build radius).

T2 fac build rate 70, over the original 40, just seems like better scaling. Will plp spend ~800 mass to make 3-4 extra T1 facs (240 mass and 20 build rate each; 4-5 t1 facs, 80-100 build rate total), or spend the 800 mass, extra energy, and build time to upgrade to have a single t2 fac and access to t2 units with 70 build rate and less space taken? The T1 facs can soak up more dmg from a raid and is less of a loss if they blow up. T2 fac can be taken out with 2 TML hits, without much of a chance to repair in between TML hits.

T3 fac build rate 180. Reduce cost by 25%, from 3150 and 28350 to about 2250.

Quantum Gateway 150. Give gateway access to t3 land and air bps. It's a gateway, right? Not a land/air fac, so I don't see why gating in air and land units would be harder than SCUs. Maybe make the gateway's HP really low, and give it a personal shield that costs -500 to keep on, which makes up the gate's toughness and prevent crashing planes from wiping it out. The drain pretty much adds an artificial cost of being able to gate in stuff and keeping it "online", with a player making huge risk having it off, as putting a cheap T2 shield near it won't stop few plane crashes from killing it.

Cheaper T3 fac and more useful gateway should make T3 land a more viable option. T3 should technically beat T4, mass for mass, if it weren't for some exp having crazy vet bonuses and how hard it is to spam T3 units.

Adopt and rebalance T3 mobile SAM units from Blk Ops for FAF, maybe making them a bit cheaper/more spammable.

Make experimental units slower: ML 2.15, Ytho 2.0, GC 2.0, Mega 1.75, Fatboy 1.5. Might change how exp vs exp fights happen, with Megaliths not having such a major speed disadvantage anymore (currently is 2.0, with the other 3 being 2.5 and Fatboy 1.75), but I think due to their size, they all need to be slower. I personally think ACUs should also stand a slightly better chance at running away (1.7 move speed). ML should be faster than the others too, not the same speed (also needs that speed advantage to kill an Aeon ACU with range and 1 level of overshield, before the Aeon ACU can OC it down solo).

Increase Megalith build radius to 3. Increase build rate to 250. More would use it as a fac if it weren't so slow to initiate building (after spending time to move into position) and the faster build speed might help offset how long eggs take to unpack/hatch (assuming that it's hard to speed up the unpack animation).

Make lighter armored tanks/skirmisher faster (3.5 to 4.5: mantis, Moongoose, Hoplite, Titan/Loyalist), medium armored tanks/support units (3.0 to 3.5: T1 Arty, Stealth/Shield, Ish, Oth, Harb), and heavily armored tanks and heavy siege weapons to be only slightly slower (2.5 to 3.0: brick, perci, t3 arty). Land scouts even faster 5.0+. LABs and Fire Beetles 4.5. In betweeners tuned accordingly, like strikers, riptides, rhinos, etc. Just a general land unit speed increase, to promote quick attacks and sneaking raiders in past choke points, creating diversions, and to speed up the slowest units to at least be significantly faster than land exps.

Make nuke launchers even harder to assist, especially considering if engi changes above go through, by increasing build rate and missile build time by another 50% (1620 and 486000). Reduce nuke muzzle velocity and increase time for nuker to unpack (esp UEF's), so it is much harder to use vs naval and land based armies. Tweak naval nuke to have a shorter max range.

Make anti nuke buildings cheaper and the anti-missiles that they build to be more expensive. Rather build more anti nukes in various spots, with 1 anti in each (or none, to act as a decoy/deterrent), rather than make 1-2 well protected ones that continuously make cheap anti-missiles non stop.

Make T2 static arty much more accurate, with faster muzzle velocity. It's poor accuracy makes it relatively useless, esp considering its fire rate and cost. T2/T3 naval shouldn't be able to micro to dodge its shots.

Make ASF much slower. T1 and T2 have max speed of 15, with min of 10. T3 has max speed of 25 with 1.9 combat turn, while T1 and T2 have 1.5 turn. T3 bombers have 18 max speed. ASF shouldn't be any more than 20, IMO. Also, double up ASF stats as well, to make 20 asf the equivalent of 40. Reduces lag and makes it so high AA dps things aren't suffering from overkilling fighters as much and so AoE AA dps isn't more desired than straight up pure AA dps.

Give T3 SAM weapon faster muzzle velocity (80-120). Maybe give it area damage radius of 1, unless ASF are nerfed.

Rebalance T2 static flak to be approximately the value of 2 t2 mobile flak, but with some sort of bonus--maybe faster muzzle velocity, better accuracy, and/or slightly longer range.

Scathis is a little cheap for how effective it is now. It was tuned to be equivalent to a mavor and salvation, or 3 T3 static arty in effectiveness, as Cyb didn't have a big game ender before. Salvation 2x fire rate bug was removed, so now it's not OP anymore. Now it's cheaper than 1 T3 arty and rains destruction on anything in range, which I think is still pretty long, esp on a 10x10 map, covering almost the entire map if placed in the center. IMO, it should be tuned to be a cross between 2 Fatboys and a T3 static arty. Tone down AoE to 4, increase randomness to 1.5, IMO.

Naval speeds should be retuned to be more on the slower side. Big ships = slow. Small ships = fast. Vast numbers of T1 naval should be catch and overwhelm a small fleet consisting of only t2 ships. Kind of lame especially for cybran players who only do t2 and rely on speed and stealth and still manage to get some shots off while retreating; ships theoretically shouldn't be able to shoot while retreating, due to being unable to shoot directly behind them, but they do shoot at slight angles, as targets approach while spread out. In exchange for being slower, T2 naval needs more HP (have seeings much less invested in T2 air taking out T2 naval so easily. 3 cruisers (~6k mass) loses vs 6 Fighter bombers (~2.5k mass); should at least take 12 FB (~5k mass). Only with shields can naval really beat air cost effectively. T1 naval can be retuned accordingly to T2 hover units like the Riptide (with speed, cost, HP, and weapon). Frigs anti-torps could be a little improved, to make them more useful mixed in a fleet with larger ships.

Maybe give all subs stealth when stationary, and maybe some T2/T3 subs cloak/stealth when stationary (like sera scout). Should reduce ground fire sniping from bombers, battleships, TML, and such better (don't give to HARMS though). Reduce water vision on smaller units like subs and T1 ships, shield boats, etc.


After playing blk ops and experiencing how awesome wider build radiuses are, I discovered that it was an untapped avenue for rebalance. I also think speed tweaking is also relatively untapped, beyond the T1 tank stage. If T1 tanks were tuned to be able to overwhelm an ACU with their speed advantage, other T3 land need to be tuned to be able to use their speed advantage and numbers vs exp. ASF are soooo fast, able to be effective at intercepting stuff across the map with really lazy map awareness, due to how fast they are. Being 2.0 faster than any unit is a huge advantage on the ground, but being 10.0 faster... WTF, why? Naval speed was bothering me, especially with hit and run tactics, UEF with their shields and cybran with range and stealth. Even Sera was able to do some dmg while on the run, at least destroying UEF shields or making it a risk to chase for the back half of the fleet. The build rate tweaks that were the solution from vanilla to FA just could use a bit better scaling between tech levels, mostly with facs. Carriers that cost 4k mass that could build faster than a T3 air fac and cost no more (considering the cost of T2 and T1), and have lots of HP, AA intel, and store/repair aircraft for *really cheap* was an amazing value. Reducing T3 Air fac cost and increasing build rate at least puts it on a similar level.

I'd like to make these changes into a mod, if I knew how easy it is to tweak it all, so I could actually test them in game and maybe submit it. Anyone got guides, templates, or whatever? I have a feeling that all these changes turn the game from a macro game with lots of unit spam, to more of a micro tactical game, with more focus on map awareness, scouting, and countering enemies according to what units they are building, and where their most powerful units are located, rather than just how many units they have.

[ColonelSheppard]

for now:

some agreed some not agree

i can't answer this thread in a few words give me a day or two

[Varaxis]

In addition to the above, Cybran engi stations should have their build radius at 25 from the start. I think 2 upgrades to it is excessive and micro intensive. Rather have it just have one upgrade (combined equiv cost of 2 prior upgrades) which increases range by another 10. With a major build range increase, final build rate should maybe toned down a little, to 30 max, making it more equivalent to the UEF station (UEF's mobility's con being that it can be shot down and is expensive to rebuild, and aa targeting can also kill shields or buildings).

Their limited range really limits their use as an immobile engineer. Rather have mobile engineers or invest in shared UEF tech for drones. They used to be effective at assisting, but now spammed T1 engineers are more cost effective. More range would make it far more useful for reclaiming, even doing front line reclaiming and repairing and, of course assist with building. With other engineers having a higher build rate, if earlier proposed changes go through, it wouldn't be wise to use just for assisting factories, unless traffic jams is a prob. It will also be more useful when build on coasts, for naval maps.

I think shields are too powerful. I wouldn't be saddened if all of them got a ~25% decrease on shield strength.

The Absolver weapon would be nice if it had more area dmg radius (to hit more than one shield, in the case of stacked shields) and should have the same range as mobile arty (90). Give it area dmg radius of ~8 and maybe a higher firing arc and people will use it.

[pip]

Among all the things that are written here, there is an idea I really find interesting to think about : tweaking the build radius of engineers. These are values that can improve gameplay and base building management, and promote higher tier engineers through conveniency of use. (On the other hand, I think engineering stations are fine as they are).

The build radius for all builders is surpsrisingly the same (5), from t1 to t4, except ACU who have 10.
Maybe increasing the range through tiers would make sense and incite players to build t2 and t3 engineers more. Something moderate but meaningful, like :
t1 = 5
t2 = 8
t3 and SCU = 12

All the other ideas, I don't want to comment about them. It would be a completely different game and I just don't want that.

[Zock]

I also love the idea of decrease the range of t1 engys and increase others

[Lu_Xun_17]

Hum i really think we should keep current T1 engi build range...
this would be a too big changement. any line of pgen would need more time to be built, or the 2 crutial seconds needed to engies to finish a pd and stop a com rush would become longer.

for T2 and T3 engies however, it can be a good buff idea to increase their range imo

[Softly]

I agree with Lu Xun, changing t1 engie range wouldn't just affect t1 vs t2 balance but also early game timing when you can't use any other engineers. If we want to try this it should be by buffing t2 and t3 engies.

[Varaxis]

Yea, the T2 and T3 eng def could use a range increase, especially considering how buildings increase in size with each tech level increase.

Maybe increase ACU build radius with eng suites as well.

All the changes together would need some major balance done to the unit build time costs. Can keep the t1 eng build range and radius the same and let people continue using t1 eng spam for engineering power, if you increase the build rate of factories and build cost of units. Sweeping changes suck though, as it needs a lot of time to properly tune it. For now, I would be happy with buffs on t2 and t3 eng (and SCU) build radius and maybe better scaling on build rate. I only suggested the radius nerf since I think t1 engineer spam was getting ridiculous and a nerf would an easier fix (easier, not optimal) than tweaking everything else to allow them to stay the same.

I guess the naval suggestions are just my personal peeves. I don't like how unnatural it looks. T3 is suitably slow, but their turn rate is silly fast. T2 is a tad too fast. They shouldn't be able to outrun smaller ships. No player continues chasing them, since it's just a losing battle, even if you have invested more mass in T1. T1 is pretty much ineffective then. Naval fleet warfare in my mind should be more about stand and fighting and winning through sheer power, formations, unit mixing, and efficient targeting. I think mixing T1 in a naval fleet should be viable. Use them to defend vs other T1 and T2 hover tanks and also scout, or take out weaker targets like shield boats, cruisers, and torp boats. Torp boats and remain fast though, as they're basically like the UEF's T2 sub and small in size.

T3 ASF spam is also a personal peeve. Their cost seems a bit out of line with the other units. IMO, you should double their cost (mass/energy/build time) and double their stats (HP, dmg), and keep their physics the same. Well, physics the same except that I think 25 speed is too fast. Making them 20 speed should make it so people can't intercept from across the map, and actually have to *intercept* by using good intel and predicting the enemy's path and taking a faster route to cut them off. With them at 800m, they're at least closer to the other t3 air in cost, and it would lag less as there's half the # of ASF in the air, and when you fly over AA, the overkill on the first one in range that all the SAMs stupidly target wouldn't be so bad. It's a buff to SAMs in that regard, and I know SAMs could use some love as they're not as effective as plp would like it to be vs spammed T3 air. Vs bombers and T4 air, they remain just as effective. if you lower their speed, they actually get more hits on them as well, as long as you properly intercept something. I think fighters passing their target and needing to wheel back around is a bit unnatural too. Max speed 20 anyone? Try to intercept 20 T3 bombers, that are escorted by 20-30 asf, with only 50 restorers, and you will see what I mean about intercepting skills and good map awareness.