FAF Balance Patch Test Mod

[Treble]

I misread.

Maybe try playing it before making remarks. You will find that you cannot possibly, unless your enemy is a complete moron that is afk, teleport anything into his base. The beacon will be killed before the teleport can occur and you will also lose an expensive QGate.

Im suprised to see no hover ability added to the Seraphim sniper bot. I thought Funk was a proponent of this idea. Shield absolver range is a no-brainer, as are the Tempest and Seraphim Destroyer, sub and Yenzyne buffs.

[Mr Pinguin]

There is not a single one of these changes I disagree too. Good work

One small change I would like is cheaper T3 siedge units. I dont thing there can be many arguments against these as at the moment your better off investing this mass into more percys/harbs/briskstanks unless there is like 10+ PD. Anyone agree to these changes?

-T3 artillery mass cost 800-600 - cost is better invested into percivals unless position is very heavily defended.
-T3 sniper bots mass cost 800-600. Never used at the moment.
-T3 absolver anti shield range 60-80. At the moment it is outranged my ravages and mmls. With this change it will have the same range as the UEF spearhead.

I absolutely agree that the T3 mobile arty need buffs and the sniper bots need some tweaking, but I see lots of problems with T3 land balance so I have some other suggestions.

I don't have time tonight to go into the whole idea, but the basic problem is that for almost any situation you can find, the best option at T3 is to build more heavy bots. Percivals and Bricks and Othuums and Harbingers are just way, way more cost effective, even when you need to take a heavily defended position.

This isn't just my opinion or personal game experience. I've tested this a *ton* by setting up all sorts of attack and defense situations. Per cost, pure groups of heavy bots are almost always better at breaking into bases or holding off enemy attacks (it doesn't matter if you compare vs pure sniper/arty/SAB groups or if you mix them in with heavy bots, the pure heavy bot groups almost always do best).

I've tested the T3 arty a ton and found that they're nearly useless in almost any situation.
-Their DPS (and rate of fire) is way too low to be used for shield breaking
-Their DPS, RoF, range, and (in)accuracy make them mostly useless for defense or hitting any target that can move.
(I think this is a good thing, personally, but it adds to their uselessness).
(And yes I know that the Cybran Trebuchet can be awesome to behold vs groups of T1 spam, but that's actually only at fairly close range and it's an obscure use and Bricks still pwn T1 spam even better..)
And, even vs groups of PD with shields, it's almost always going to be more cost-effective to just spam T3 heavy bots and send them in.

The Spearhead is actually very good in 3603, and the T2 MMLs are pretty useful too.

The Sniper bots are iffy. They should, imho, be the counter for the slow-moving, long-ranged heavy bots (Percy & Brick).
The Sera bot can actually do this with some success, so I could see leaving it alone. The Sprite striker is next to useless for some subtle reasons (its 'charge-up' time and deploy animation delay firing too much, on defense, it doesn't deploy until it has a target so approach units have a few extra seconds to close-in, it has a turret-facing bug that causes its turret to instantly re-face when it redeploys, and its medium range plus 10 second refire delay don't allow for a good rhythm of sniping and falling back as is possible with the Seraphim Usha-ah. The sera bot also just has better DPS/cost).

Finally, the Siege Assault Bots (Titan and Loyalist) can be useful if you get an early T3 fac and want to raid, but they're seriously outclassed by the range and DPS/cost and HP/cost of the Percival, Brick, Harb, and Othuum.

In my view, T3 land balance should include:

-Super-heavy bots/tanks (Percival, Brick, Othuum, Harb) as the dominant units head-on. (Countered by snipers or other Heavy bots)
-Sniper bots for defense and harassment (which means they need the DPS to be able to beat advancing armies of slow units, and the speed/deployment-ability to be able to raid and retreat).
-Mobile artillery with enough range and DPS to truly threaten shields and turtlers
-The fast bots (SABS) for raiding and countering long-ranged, low RoF units like snipers and mobile arty. (countered by heavy bots and T1 PD).



Anyway, here's the list of T3 land changes I've put into my 3604 balance mod:
Note that, even though I buff the arty a lot, I add a min range and make other tweaks because I want them to be awesome at sieging but easily countered so they can't be used for excessive turtling.

Code: Select all

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Artillery>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

***All T2 stationary arty
   20% cost decrease (Mass, Energy, and Build time)
   50% Damage increase (With the cost decrease, this makes them about equal to 3599 T3 arty DPS/cost)
   10% inaccuracy decrease (still higher, and thus less accurate, than T3 mobile arty)
   33% increase to turret turning speed (from 6 to 8)
   MinRadius = 25, #was 5


***All T3 arty get the same speed, range, velocity, and ~40E drain per second

ual0304 Serenity, Aeon T3 mobile arty
   MaxSpeed = 2.0,#2.5
   Damage = 185, #Was 95, new dps=116, was 71
   EnergyDrainPerSecond = 50,#new
            EnergyRequired = 700,#new needs to be reduced?
   FiringRandomness = 0.75, #1
       FiringRandomnessWhileMoving = 2, #new
   MaxRadius = 110, #90
   MinRadius = 20, #buffed from 25 - originally 0
   MuzzleVelocity = 26, #22
   MuzzleVelocityReduceDistance = 100, #85
   RateOfFire = 0.0625, #0.05 (16s instead of 20)
   **Per the original design, this arty is meant to be the 2nd highest DPS, but worst vs shields and mobile units


url0304 Trebuchet, Cybran T3 mobile arty
   Damage = 720, #450, new dps=107 -too high? reduce to 100ish?

uel0304 Demolisher, UEF T3 mobile arty
   Damage = 1200, #750, new dps=120

xsl0304 Suthanus, Seraphim T3 mobile arty
   Damage = 1120, #700, new=112dps

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Sniper bots>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

xal0305 Sprite Striker, Aeon Sniper bot
   Damage = 2400, #now 144DPS--was 130 DPS #1300, now just over the Usha-ah
   RateOfFire = 0.06, #now 16.6sec, was #0.1 10sec,
   TrackingRadius = 1.35, #1.15, #hoping this will get it to deploy sooner?
   TurretPitchSpeed = 45, #30,#needed buff so it can swing 180 faster
   WeaponUnpackAnimationRate = 1.5, #1, #buffed so it can fire sooner




*I also want to rebalance things a bit so that the T2 tanks still have a role.. but that's another story.

**I like that the Percival can be countered by cheap unit spam (because of its low RoF and thus high overkill). I'd like to use this more in T3 vs T2/T1 balance. The Brick, in contrast, can mow through weaker units like crazy. This makes it harder to find a niche for the Loyalist.. However, the Loyalist already has a high-damage, low RoF main gun. If this were tweaked, the Brick could become the high-RoF, lower damage/DPS unit (with buffed HP to compensate), and the Loyalist could be reimagined as a close-in sniper that has to fire once and then retreat because of its low RoF. I've also experimented with some tweaks to the UEF Titan's shields to make it a bit more useful as a hit-and-run raider.

[FunkOff]

I didn't buff snipers or arty in this mod because I figured the shield nerf was sufficient for this purpose. Arty/snipers are fantastic when there are no shields around, so clearly it's the shields that are making arty/snipers perform sub-optimally.

If I nerfed shields AND buffed arty, that would likely create the "double-nerf" and "double-buff" situations on shields/arty... people would complain shields were useless and arty was OP. Let's try one change at a time to this dynamic and see if it works.

And yes, I do think Titans are shitty, but loyalists are really good thanks to their death EMP.

[Mr Pinguin]

Wait, where did you nerf shields? I didn't see any shield nerfs in your notes.

In any case, I don't actually think that the static shields really need a nerf (at least not an across-the-board nerf). With the 3603 buffs to the T2 MMLs and, especially, to the UEF Spearhead (188 DPS, 80 range, pinpoint accuracy, for 400 Mass!), static shields can be brought down with relative ease so long as there aren't any ravagers around to fend of the T2 MMLs (and so long as they're not spamming endless TMD..).

Moreover, even with a shield nerf I still think that T3 mobile arty are underpowered. They're just not good enough or interesting enough to warrant their use.

...And.. even if you don't think that the arty need a buff, you might still wish to consider my changes to the Aeon Serenity and Sprite striker. The Serenity is a bit underpowered imo vs the other arty, even at 3599 levels, but its ability to fire on the move is also a bit out of place imo. I nerfed this by giving it a major accuracy penalty when firing on the move. The sprite striker is just plain pathetic. The only reason that no one notices is that no one ever uses them.

[FunkOff]

whoops, forgot the shield nerf info, here it is:

-shield recharge time nerf
--Aeon T2 mob 60, #from 26
--UEF T2 mob 55, #from 24
--Seraphim T2 mob 70, #from 45
--Shield boat 70, #from 32
--Aeon T2 40, #from 16
--Aeon T3 60, #from 24
--UEF T2 35, #from 15
--UEF T3 55, #from 23
--Seraphim T2 42, #from 17
--Seraphim T3 62, #from 25

[noobymcnoobcake]

Just an idea - how about giving loyalists + Titans more range than heavy bots so they can kite them like T2 bots kite T2 tanks but lose to them head on charge? at the moment bricks are better unless there is an ACU around.

Those shield nerfs are very steep. What about cybran shields? they mega OP now? I dont think T2 mobile shields will survive long enough to recharge at all now. Yes this is good when there is 50 of them but otherwise when you got 1 or 2 helping your double gunned ACU there not nearly as usefull. Prehaps a little underpowered?

Mobile Shieds are VERY hard to balance.

How about giving cybran the quick recharge shields and low hp, then UEF then aeon and then sera with high HP shields and much lower recharge rate - adds faction diversity. Also add stealth to the cybran ED5.

How about decreasing mass cost of shields now as you need more but keep E cost the same. That way you need even more energy than before and this means it takes longer to get a shielded firebase as you need a T2 generator first.

[Mr Pinguin]

Just an idea - how about giving loyalists + Titans more range than heavy bots so they can kite them like T2 bots kite T2 tanks but lose to them head on charge? at the moment bricks are better unless there is an ACU around.

This is certainly possible, but this would basically be a mirror of the balance at T2. (With slow, heavy tanks that can be easily kited by the Mongoose and the Hoplite). I see a few problems with this though:

-The heavy bots already have good range (35 for the Percival and Brick, 30 for the Harb).
-To kite them, we'd have to give the Titan and Loyalist crazy-long-range (40ish?), or we'd have to nerf Percy and Brick range.
-Nerfing Percy and Brick range might be doable, but they're very slow units so I think their long reach is important.
-Moreover, the Percy and Brick are meant to be strong vs heavily defended bases, but T1 PD have excellent DPS/cost. Thus it's important for base-breaker units to have enough range to strike PD without being forced to walk in at close range..

Personally, I'd like to create new roles for the Loyalist and Titan using their primary advantage (speed), which is why I wrote the long post above about buffing T3 arty and sniper bots. I think we could also consider some secondary tweaks to their abilities.. (Buffing the Titan's shield with faster regen could let them be weaker in a stand-up fight but stronger if they use hit-and-run tactics to inflict damage and then retreat for a quick regen. This is probably how personal shields were meant to work in SupCom, but as it is they're mostly just another pool of HP. And as I said above, I'd like to tweak the Loyalist so it was even more of a 'glass cannon' that could rush in and inflict huge damage. Then it can also provide the benefit of its excellent death-stun weapon).

As for the shields: I won't say that FunkOff's changes are bad.. they might work ok.. but I don't like that direction as much. I favor an approach where we keep shields as strong as they are in 3599/3603, but we nerf their E-maintenance cost so there's a bigger emphasis on Pgens. The energy maintenance mechanic is one of the best secondary routes for balance in SupCom, since it creates new tactical opportunities and strategic trade-offs. (e.g., when your enemy spams shields and other E-demanding units, you can hobble their entire force by raiding Pgens. And when you're spamming E-demanding units, you have to choose where to invest or where to build since Pgen farms can take up a lot of space). That's part of the reason why I added an E-cost to the T3 mobile artillery. E-maintenance seems like the easiest way to deter players from heavy shield spamming.

[FunkOff]

Mr Pinguin, I'm hesitant to create new roles for the T3 siege bots... but buffing them is certainly doable.... at least the titan because it sucks.

In regards to shields, all increasing energy costs does is make shields worse in mid game and roughly the same in the late game. Mid game shields are not the problem, it's late game when you can stack tons of them. That's why I nerfed recharge time instead of anything else... When you only have one or two shields, they'll die when you down them and recharge rate doesn't really come into play. Recharge rate comes into play much more strongly when you have 10+ shields and it becomes impossible to out-DPS all of them.

Take the example of the seraphim T3 mobile shield in 3599. The damn thing was nearly unusable in 1v1 games because it required -300. To even have a single one, you'd need a T2 pgen. To have 3 on the field, you'd need 2 T2 pgens... that essentially doubles their cost. (800 mass apiece x 3 = 2400, +2400 again for 2 T2 pgens). However, in late-game scenarios where you have a bunch of T3 pgens, the energy cost becomes far less relevant and spamming them is easier... uberge3k referred to them as slightly OP, I think, and he was talking about the late-game timeframe.

I'm confident this change will greatly reduce the effectiveness of late-game shield stacking while simultaneously preserving the balance and effectiveness of shields in the mid-game as much as possible.

Also, E cost does NOT deter spam, it only pushes it later into the game. Just look at Cybran ASFs. They all have E drain but people will spam those things like it's nobody's business.

[Mr Pinguin]

I actually agree with most of your finer points FunkOff, but I disagree with the way you're weaving them together to draw your conclusions. (And I'm not adamantly against using shield-rebuild nerfs to balance the shields, I just like E-drain more for mobile shields and I'm skeptical about the need for the rebuild nerf on static shields).

In regards to shields, all increasing energy costs does is make shields worse in mid game and roughly the same in the late game. Mid game shields are not the problem, it's late game when you can stack tons of them.

Increasing E-drain costs is definitely a nerf, so yes it makes them worse in the mid-game (and the late-game, since cost-effectiveness is always important). But the effect is that it slows the rate of their deployment and, once many of them have been deployed, it makes your army/fleet that much more vulnerable to a loss in power.

That's why I nerfed recharge time instead of anything else... When you only have one or two shields, they'll die when you down them and recharge rate doesn't really come into play.

I disagree. I think that more-than-doubling the rebuild time makes a very big difference to the utility of my early Shield of Light or SD-Pulse. In the early game I might have layered only two together, or my shield might go down right as I'm fending off an attack. In both cases, I'd much prefer that the shield comes back online 15 seconds later instead of 35.

Recharge rate comes into play much more strongly when you have 10+ shields and it becomes impossible to out-DPS all of them.

When are you seeing 10+ static shields stacked together? That sounds hard to do, and if you're talking about T3 shields, that would be very expensive. I know it can be done, yes, but it's hard for me to imagine a player using Pgen+shield farming as a winning strategy unless it's a 2x resource Thermopylae game or something like that. More importantly, stacked static shields could be overwhelmed and "out-DPS'd" by artillery because of its wide splash. The only problem in 3599/3603 is that the arty has pathetic DPS for its cost.

No offense. I know you're a much more experienced player than I am, but maybe you could show us a replay where this crazy shield-spamming player won the game? I'd just like to see what kind of scenario you're trying to address with these nerfs.

Take the example of the seraphim T3 mobile shield in 3599. The damn thing was nearly unusable in 1v1 games because it required -300. To even have a single one, you'd need a T2 pgen. To have 3 on the field, you'd need 2 T2 pgens... that essentially doubles their cost. (800 mass apiece x 3 = 2400, +2400 again for 2 T2 pgens). However, in late-game scenarios where you have a bunch of T3 pgens, the energy cost becomes far less relevant and spamming them is easier...

Yes, the Athanah has been overpriced imo. That's why I suggested an E-drain of -250 for it earlier.

And yes, I'm fully aware that the E-drain cost indirectly factors into a unit's build cost. That's why I made this handy table (attached) that shows the effective cost for the mobile shields, which adds in the proportional cost from T1, T2 and T3 pgens. But, I think you're contradicting yourself when you argue that this only matters in the early/mid game.

If E-drain costs factor into total unit cost, then they're part of the unit's cost/benefit ratio, and that's relevant throughout the whole game. It's true that individual unit costs become less relevant in later games, but that's because there's no hard cap on resource income in SupCom. You can always create more energy with Pgens and more mass with fabs. Nevertheless, a higher E-drain means a player needs more Pgen farming and that is both a direct cost and risky investment.

Also, E cost does NOT deter spam, it only pushes it later into the game. Just look at Cybran ASFs. They all have E drain but people will spam those things like it's nobody's business.

The Geminis are a good point, but...
I think the thing with Geminis is that their E-drain is relatively small (-25) compared to their E-cost for construction, so by the time players are building Geminis they already need a lot of Pgen-power. Also, people think the cost is worthwhile so they pay it. Nevertheless, I've seen cases where players were forced to temporarily turn off their ASF stealth because the E-costs got out of control (maybe because they're rushing a T4 or something).




>>>>>>>>>>Let's take the last naval replay you posted as an example, where you were fielding (and then spamming) Bulwarks vs Karotten.
Would you have been able to field as many Bulwarks, as early, if they had twice the E-drain? As you said with the Athanahs, you probably would've been delayed there since you'd need to slow your unit production and aggression while you built more Pgens. (Although with my suggested changes, the total Bulwark cost is the same, it's just shifted to Pgens).

Then, later on in the game when you had tons of Bulwarks: If Karotten had nuked your base instead of your ally's, you might've lost most/all of your power. Even with their -150 E-drain, this might've made it hard for you to keep your shields up on all of your Bulwarks. But if the E-drain had been higher then you would've had more Pgens and, probably, more of your total power would've been directed at maintaining your Bulwark's shields. That means that a big loss in power would've forced you to choose between abandoning unit production or turning off a bunch of your shields.

The point is: When E-Drain costs are (relatively) low then covering them is (relatively) trivial and it's less of a tactical/strategic gameplay mechanic. When the costs are higher then the advantages of shield spamming (and ofc, stacking) are offset by the strategic vulnerabilities of maintaining a large economic infrastructure. That makes for more interesting gameplay and balance imo.

[AdmiralZeech]

No fuel nerf for higher tech aircraft?