Intended gameplay?

Talk about general things concerning Forged Alliance Forever.

Moderators: FtXCommando, Ze Dogfather

Intended gameplay?

Postby Iszh » 07 Feb 2014, 09:19

Is that really what you call intended gameplay with a t1 bomber? A person can win a game with 1 unit?!?
Attachments
12134-Iszh.fafreplay
(36.17 KiB) Downloaded 43 times
User avatar
Iszh
Evaluator
 
Posts: 827
Joined: 26 Apr 2012, 08:51
Has liked: 116 times
Been liked: 126 times
FAF User Name: Iszh

Re: Intended gameplay?

Postby Ze_PilOt » 07 Feb 2014, 09:21

You want to see a replay of someone winning with only a lab? :)
Nossa wrote:I've never played GPG or even heard of FA until FAF started blowing up.
User avatar
Ze_PilOt
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 8985
Joined: 24 Aug 2011, 18:41
Location: fafland
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 376 times
FAF User Name: Ze_PilOt

Re: Intended gameplay?

Postby Iszh » 07 Feb 2014, 09:24

I simply dont like this playstyle of course it cannot win alone but in former times it was not happening. Playing supcom was more or less relaxed. This shit is stress i am playing piano on my mouse not to lose immidiately. I dont want stress i want to play a game. Make this bomber back to its 3599 energy price!
User avatar
Iszh
Evaluator
 
Posts: 827
Joined: 26 Apr 2012, 08:51
Has liked: 116 times
Been liked: 126 times
FAF User Name: Iszh

Re: Intended gameplay?

Postby Deering » 07 Feb 2014, 09:27

yes :D

edit: to seeing the lab game that is
Deering
Evaluator
 
Posts: 673
Joined: 18 Sep 2013, 11:47
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 41 times
FAF User Name: Deering

Re: Intended gameplay?

Postby IceDreamer » 07 Feb 2014, 09:31

No, it is not intended. However, despite my fighting against it, we do seem to have a very high concentration of jackasses in this community who value abusive, unfun, unintentional but fundamentally skill-dependant gameplay over the greater good.

Unfortunately, they do have some things right though.

1 - We don't currently know how to fix this without causing even buggier behaviour. That is the biggest reason the asshole arguments hold water at the moment, it is the lesser of two evils.

2 - That player wasn't even great at Bomber micro. Although I'm nowhere near as good as you as a player, had that been me microing the Bomber, or another player who is good at it, you would be raging even harder. Bomber micro can be far, far stronger than that was.

3 - You did make the mistake of bunching up your PGens, something some top players are now very careful to avoid because of this.

4 - Bombers have now been balanced with the gameplay in existence. Yeah, it's not a perfect world, and I really dislike it, but the fact remains that if we remove this ability, we will have to DRAMATICALLY strengthen Bombers in order to have them viable.

5 - First Bomber is good for gameplay diversity. First Bomber only exists as long as A: This glitch is around or B: Bombers are insanely stronger than they are now. Until we find a way of fixing this in a bug-free manner... Again, lesser of two evils.
IceDreamer
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 2607
Joined: 27 Dec 2011, 07:01
Has liked: 138 times
Been liked: 488 times

Re: Intended gameplay?

Postby ColonelSheppard » 07 Feb 2014, 11:00

Iszh wrote:Is that really what you call intended gameplay with a t1 bomber? A person can win a game with 1 unit?!?

this bomber killed 3 BUNCHED engys with the first bomber without serious micro, then it was microed to kill another

honestly sorry for beeing direct in advance but:
1. 3 engys bunch up - fail
2. no scout, despite enemy having PD and map has an esy defendable area and is there for optimal for bomber first - fail
3. no doding - fail
4. you still are ahead around minute 6 - no fail, just fun fact

I wish people would finally stop bitching around about first bomber, here are a few replays from yesterday whit first bomber countered very well:
1828636
1827593
1827533

+ the video i posted about 100 times already:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URILRb0gXCU


And here is a replay with real bombermicro, not this pseudo bombermicro in your replay:
1812127

And for the sake of it here is a LAB killing a tank:
1824793


and now, can we close this thread pls?
User avatar
ColonelSheppard
Contributor
 
Posts: 2997
Joined: 20 Jul 2012, 12:54
Location: Germany
Has liked: 154 times
Been liked: 165 times
FAF User Name: Sheppy

Re: Intended gameplay?

Postby rockoe10 » 07 Feb 2014, 19:47

I don't think his comment was about countering it, but rather the way it's played in general. That is, he thinks it's just a stupid mechanic and should be removed on that principle alone.
ZeP: doesn't matter if it's an avatar, a trophy or a collection of dead cats
ZeP: it's the same code
User avatar
rockoe10
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 299
Joined: 05 Jan 2013, 05:09
Has liked: 36 times
Been liked: 17 times
FAF User Name: Rockoe10

Re: Intended gameplay?

Postby Ze_PilOt » 07 Feb 2014, 22:04

Oh god, there is already a 20 pages thread about it. Go there.
Closing this thread.
Nossa wrote:I've never played GPG or even heard of FA until FAF started blowing up.
User avatar
Ze_PilOt
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 8985
Joined: 24 Aug 2011, 18:41
Location: fafland
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 376 times
FAF User Name: Ze_PilOt


Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest