Compilation of naval balance changes

Post here any idea about current FA Balance.
REMINDER : This is NOT a community balance forum. The thread ideas won't be used in a patch.
Forum rules REMINDER : This is NOT a community balance forum. The thread ideas won't be used in a patch.

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

Postby Vmcsnekke » 02 May 2012, 13:57

let's go back on topic.

I suggest to nerf the speed/turn-rate of the
UEF T2 Shield Boat (it currently is 7/60) and to buff
the speed/turn-rate of the Cybran T2 sub (it currently is 6.5/80)

This is a change that is very easy to do.

It makes Cybran navy can more easily take down UEF T2 shield boats
and to a lesser extent any other UEF/Sera/Aeon boat. It requires some
micro which maybe a good thing. Do not forget it is easy to counter
T2 subs with T1 torp defenses.

Regardless of what happens to the OP UEF BC, I find it weird the
UEF T2 Shield Boat is about the fastest boat of them all. It is
one of the big strengths of UEF navy and it is hard to "surprise it"
with t1 frigates or t2 subs because of its reasonable good
speed/turn-rate.

Just for reference the speed/turn-rate of a t1 frigate is 6/60.

Why not make it 5/60 for UEF T2 Shield Boat and 7/80 for the Cybran
T2 sub.

There are others ways to fix the OP-ness of Sera/UEF navy on
normal/large navy maps, this one will help, it is simple and it
doesn't really influence small navy maps.
Vmcsnekke
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 70
Joined: 14 Sep 2011, 12:40
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

Postby Jace » 02 May 2012, 15:18

Just learn to play your faction. Buffing cybran T2Navy......there is something seriously wrong with your playstyle. Cybrans have the strongest T2Navy you can get, and you want to buff them?
Jace
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 178
Joined: 12 Apr 2012, 09:26
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

Postby -_V_- » 03 May 2012, 03:58

IF you consider only t2 navy, it's probably true that t2 cybran navy is very powerfull, although now, that the anti torps have been fixed on the sera destros, those are good competitors to the cybran counterpart. So the cybran t2 are not so OP versus the others anymore. (finally).

But *even if* we say that the the cybran have a clear advantage on t2 navy, you can absolutely hold off and win over the cybran with the proper mix/balance of destros and frigates.

On a 20x20 map it's completely possible to hold off with frigates only until you pass to the t3 stage, so it's probably even more easy to hold with only frigates on smaller maps thx to their mobility and speed. And once the t3 stage is reached, bye bye cybran, thx for coming. It's just steam rolling.

The thing is the window timeframe where this advantage for the cybran t2 exists, is rather short now. Equal eco, even balance in games, cybran has vey little chance to prevail if navy is the deal. No decent player will lose so fast opposite the cybran t2 navy (unless other factors than navy played a role).

I strongly disagree when you say that batteship can kill easy battlecruisers. Unless the guy is leaving his battlecruiser static to die (which is well "weird" to remain polite) no way you kill efficiently battlecruisers with battleships, and surely not with the cybran ones.
-_V_-
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: 28 Aug 2011, 22:32
Has liked: 26 times
Been liked: 65 times

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

Postby pip » 03 May 2012, 11:07

Can't watch the replay:
warning: Running "C:\ProgramData\FAForever\bin\init_ladder1v1.lua" failed: cannot read init_faf.lua: No such file or directory
stack traceback:
[C]: in function `dofile'
C:\ProgramData\FAForever\bin\init_ladder1v1.lua(1): in main chunk
pip
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1826
Joined: 04 Oct 2011, 15:33
Has liked: 191 times
Been liked: 86 times
FAF User Name: pip

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

Postby TnukSmasher3000 » 03 May 2012, 13:05

I can't watch your replay Anaryl, I get the same error message as pip. However I agree totally with V that on Setons, the cybran navy is almost totally dead. If you've been rolled by somebody playing as cybran then you've got your unit mix wrong, you've been out-teched and outproduced, you've allowed yourself to be rushed or you've just mis-managed the micro in the battle. Playing setons so regularly has taught setons players the cybran lesson. (i.e. don't go them if you want a conventional navy battle.)

The predominant problem is that shields are a monumental game changer. 1 UEF shield boat costing 1300mass (+ associated energy cost) adds 8000 regenerating hit points to a navy. The cybran cruiser (the most cost effective weapon versus UEF shields when on ground fire with the AA) does 340 DPS to the shield. i.e. you need 23 seconds of uninterrupted fire at a UEF shield boat to destroy its initial 8000HP. Factor into this that the shield regenerates at 80HP/s and you find it would take over 28 seconds of uninterrupted shooting for a cruiser to bring one down. Add to this that the cruiser costs 2000 mass, which is more than the cost + associated energy cost of the shield boat, and you have a recipe for a severe pounding. Remember that this is a best case scenario, the Cybran destroyer at range (i.e. not with torps) can only dish out 230 DPS versus the shields, meaning that 1 destroyer takes 34 seconds to knock out the initial 8000HP, then almost 12 additional seconds to compensate for regen, meaning it takes almost 46 seconds for 1 destroyer to take down one shield.

With good micro, using the range and the stealth, you might manage to last 10 minutes as a t2 Cybran navy versus UEF navy, you might even take out a ship or two, but all that you're doing is delaying the inevitable until the battlecruisers come out and the game ends. All that it's necessary for your opponent to know is that Cybran can't shoot whilst retreating - i.e. Just build up a few frigates for the early game, periodically chase the cybran navy away then retreat. They also need to know that Cybran are almost defenceless against t2 air because their cruisers don't have an exceptional punch like Sera, nor do they have shields to protect themselves like Aeon/UEF.

There is only 1 hope for a cybran navy player which is to go full-on t2 navy rush and attack between 8-9 minutes - forcing their opponent out of the water early, however this strategy is very vulnerable to t2 air as the cybran cruiser is quite weak versus massed t2 air. (In comparison with the sera cruiser for example.) Most players who try it lose anyway, because even if they can "win" their navy, they've sacrified their eco doing it, and can't build enough cruisers to hold air over their "won" navy. Additionally, cybran navy isn't very effective at entirely wiping out one half of the map. (Compared to the other factions whose cruisers/missile ships can clear everything up)
TnukSmasher3000
Crusader
 
Posts: 13
Joined: 22 Apr 2012, 03:13
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 3 times

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

Postby pip » 03 May 2012, 14:36

Anaryl wrote:
that on Setons


Setons is not representative of all FA gameplay!

Regarding the replay - there isn't much I can do there? Something must break them in transit.

I presume you have associated your replays with the FAF Client, and have you put the file in your replay directory and tried opening it through the client?


I put the replay in my FAF replay directory and could finally watch it.

Watch your replay please. It actually PROVES that as a Cybran, you need TWICE an UEF player eco to win.

He didn't use navy before quite long in the game but outplayed you in the early game with air and drops, so he had 4 islands, you had 2. You had +75 mass eco for most part of the game while you opponent steadily went from +100 to +180.

And still, despite some micro mistakes on your part and a not so well mixed UEF navy (not enough torp boats), it took him forever to destroy you. He couldn't win the navy battle, never. He had to use a sneaky Monkeylord to win.

Gosh, he had twice or three times you eco and couldn't defeat your navy.
And it's not Seton.
pip
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1826
Joined: 04 Oct 2011, 15:33
Has liked: 191 times
Been liked: 86 times
FAF User Name: pip

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

Postby pip » 03 May 2012, 16:28

He built navy after 13 minutes, he had 4 islands before that. He didn't win map control through navy, just countered yours with it but thanks to a better eco he gained previously.

Watch your own replay and the eco he had, and stop theoricrafting about something that is not shown in the replay you uploaded yourself.

His navy was capable to go toe to toe because he had two or three times your eco, that's at least twice the mass in sea units. And still he didn't win thanks to his navy, it could only hold you back, despite the huge advantage he had.

Watch it again while carefully looking at the eco, you'll see that he just won thanks to eco and overall better gameplay.
But you would see, if you're capable of a fresh look, that you did survive very long just thanks to UEF navy and a relatively quick upgrade to t3, despite a bad eco, and micro mistakes.
pip
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1826
Joined: 04 Oct 2011, 15:33
Has liked: 191 times
Been liked: 86 times
FAF User Name: pip

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

Postby -_V_- » 03 May 2012, 17:44

Anaryl wrote:It's a bit embarrassing to post this.

You wouldn't just have battleships, but a well rounded force of Cybran destroyers, cruisers, mermaids, barracudas and a couple of battleships thrown in, yeah they'll eat UEF alive. Sure if you let UEF get a full developed T3 navy he'll probably win, but the idea is that Cyb come out of the gate running and use that momentum to keep the UEF player [from] doing so [getting a developed T3]

I personally am intensely sceptical of the claim that you could hold back a Cybran T2 navy with just frigates & [destroyers]. You need to fully invest in a UEF t2 navy just to hold Cyb at T2, and there a cast floating around (demon_arm vs nubfriedrice) showing how badly T2 cyb navy curbstomps UEF.

Also, I actually watched a Setons game the other day, and T2 stretched all the way to 23 minute mark, with battle cruisers only really coming out in force around 25 mins. That's not a short T2 window.

[edit re read that]

On a 20x20 map, that same thing holds true for all factions, 20x20 is at the top end of the scale - no offence but it's like complaining that there's no T1 game on Betrayal. Setons is 20x20 though right? As mentioned above the T2 window on Setons is still kind of huge.

Just because people aren't playing Cybran on Setons means doesn't mean that they are weak, they just aren't in fashion right now for that map. I think one could probably play a very good Cyb game on Setons if you had the requisite skill.

The thing is it's just impossible to play against Yathsous - no matter what your race. That's a linked but separate issue. You can play against UEF as Cybran and win at T3 - but nothing can stop Sera at T3 but Sera.

Attached is a replay of me getting roflstomped at T3 by Cybran navy. It's kinda embarrassing but it is pertinent.


Well I already offered, but you can try to get me with cybran navy :). We'll see who prevails :).

BTW I m willing to concede that setons is not necessarily representative of the FA gameplay. That's why I tried to avoid quoting its name. But then we could try white fire (The t2 window might be a bit longer but still not significant), we could try mezmerize, island zero, well ur pick.

That being said, you may or not like setons, but we are not all dumbasses. On GPGnet you could see diverse faction on navy depending on the play style. But now even harcore cybran lovers just gave up, cause it's really too hard, close to impossible. There must be a reason somewhere. And don't say they don't know how to play cybran ;)
-_V_-
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: 28 Aug 2011, 22:32
Has liked: 26 times
Been liked: 65 times

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

Postby -_V_- » 04 May 2012, 05:59

Well yesterday I tried again playing aeon versus seraphim against Lion. He's a rather good player but usually he get his spanking quite easily. But I wanted to experiment more with aeon against sera.
It was just just a nightmare really. Despite a much better eco and at the same time a significant advantage in terms of unit number, a better production, it was freakin hard to win the sea. Doable but have to struggle quite hard. It shouldn't be like this if the navy was balanced.

Still camping on the position that the t3 navy needs some cost increase.
-_V_-
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: 28 Aug 2011, 22:32
Has liked: 26 times
Been liked: 65 times

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

Postby -_V_- » 05 May 2012, 17:42

You could really view it this way, but the t3 navy made it worse. Well at least with aeon it's not mission impossible :)
-_V_-
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: 28 Aug 2011, 22:32
Has liked: 26 times
Been liked: 65 times

PreviousNext

Return to FA Balance Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest