T3 Land fix?

[Softly]

download/file.php?id=712

Now this is good use of t3 land. Yes maybe we want it slightly easier to build for team games, but lets not let go of this balance.

[rootbeer23]

http://www.faforever.com/forums/download/file.php?id=712

Now this is good use of t3 land. Yes maybe we want it slightly easier to build for team games, but lets not let go of this balance.

Would this game have been much different if lu_xun would have had 2 bricks more? because that is what he invested into the engis assisting his t3 factory (40).
But i can show you games where half buildtime would make a difference of 300 units, i.e. 50% of those t1 thingies converting mana into ASF.

[pip]

This replay is an amazing game, thanks for posting it!

I have the impression that t4 land is good now, it's slightly less powerful due to nerfed veterancy. But t3 buildtimes can definitely still be shortened a bit (25% for instance) to reduce the need for loads of assisting engies. It wouldn't hurt the balance of this kind of games much but would definitely improve the t3 / t4 transition in team games.

[uberge3k]

I have to ask one question: how is it that something can be "balanced well", but concurrently "also be improved by making a whopping 25% change in build time"? A change of that magnitude would necessarily change the balance to some degree, and if the balance is already fine, why risk it?

Sorry, I'm a software developer and heavily subscribe to the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" doctrine.

"let's improve the file IO library" they said... "it already does its job fine at the moment, but we can rewrite its API to be clearer" they said...

[Ze_PilOt]

I have the feeling that people wants to have the 1v1 experience but in team games.
That's sadly not possible.

But if we can make it closer while not upsetting the 1v1 one, we can try.

[Softly]

I go along the lines of say a 10% build time reduction myself.

[CrazedChariot]

Just spitballing ideas, but most of the issue is linked to the fact that its easy to spam t4, not that t3 is useless.

What about looking into making t4 unassistable, or a gigantic reduction in assist power (Similar to how nukes work).

Not sure if game mechanics would allow this, but it would keep them as powerful units, but very vulnerable when being built.

This would also solve issues where all team players pump 3 or 4 ecos into one t4 unit. t3 would be heavily used to support t4 due to build power restrictions.

[Plasma_Wolf]

Making T4 unassistable is probably possible by game mechanics, but I don't think that'd be a good idea. In SupCom everything can be assisted, I'd not like to see a part of SupCom2 entering FAF like that.

A gigantic reduction in build power would have to be enforced on the assisting units when assisting the build of a T4. It can be possible but it is impossible to do it the way it's done with nukes. The SMLs and SMDs are in fact building units themselves, with a huge amount of BP (1080 and 2160 for the Sera T4), such that the relative addition of 10 T1 engineers (5 BP each) is virtually useless.

That can't be done here because the units building the T4 are the engineers and command units that can also assist the T4.

[FunkOff]

A gigantic reduction in build power would have to be enforced on the assisting units when assisting the build of a T4. It can be possible but it is impossible to do it the way it's done with nukes.

Don't be ridiculous: Of course the same thing done with nukes can be done with experimentals: Just greatly increase build time of XPs. They should have 5 build time per build cost mass. This way, a 10,000 mass experimental would take 100 seconds to build with 100 engineers, instead of the 10 seconds or so it does now.

[Plasma_Wolf]

And the commander would take 9 minutes and 15 seconds to build it, with its 90 BP. So simply increasing the build cost of an experimental would not only make them less spammable, it would also make it not worthwhile to build them in the first place, because it takes so much time to build them.