Balance team beta patch changelog

[pip]

- Aeon T2 mobile shield energy consumption decreased to 75 (from 125) > adjusted to 90
- UEF mobile shield = 100 energy upkeep (from 110)

You will need a lot of justifications for that

And the one I regularly read (the consumption need to be in line with the cost/efficiency) is a fallacy, because it was never the case for any shield in the game.
ie. http://faforever.com/faf/unitsDB/unit.p ... 02,UEB4202, but you can do the same with any other shield really.

You can say that the shield radius is superior for the UEF one. That's true.

Then, increase the shield radius of the mobile one and don't change anything else. Diversity is always better than averaging everything.

How about these changes:
Aeon mobile shield : 75 energy / 3500 HP, slightly smaller radius (15 instead of 16)
UEF mobile shield : 110 energy / 3800 HP , slightly bigger radius (17 instead of 16)

The benefit of this change is enhanced faction diversity (the 2 shields become clearly different, at a glance). As for the reason to swap HP between the shields : it's because having a smaller mobile one is actually an advantage due to the overlapping penalty effect. Aeon will need more shields to cover an army with less overlapping, and they will be able to afford it more easily, and UEF won't need as many shields but will have to be careful to not overlap too many of them.

What do you think?

[Lu_Xun_17]

Zep if you think this change is bad, please provide a replay!
(I always dreamed of saying this sentence )

Btw could we get a private section of the forum with only the balance team please?

[Nombringer]

Zep if you think this change is bad, please provide a replay!
(I always dreamed of saying this sentence )

Btw could we get a private section of the forum with only the balance team please?

Yeah, I've been to talking to pip about that stuff, this would be nice.

[lebensnebel]

As per canon Aeon shields have more hp than UEF shields (see t2 stationary shields).
I would find this VERY unintuitive to be reversed. Plz no.

Regarding balance, we should look towards an energy upkeep value which enables aeon to get 1-3 shields BEFORE first t2 power plant, as the shields are fundamental for a t2 land which can compete with the other factions.

cybran: - t2 land -> start hoplite spam -> profit
uef: - t2 land -> start mongeese/pillar spam -> profit
aeon: - t2 land -> t2 engy -> build t2 power -> build mobile shields -> too late, you already lost mapcontrol

Otherwise the blaze would have to be balanced to be equally good vs t1 spam (on it's own) as the rangebots, which I suppose would be kind of boring...

Furthermore, aeon t2 navy sucks without shields because of the dodging of exodus shots.

Those are my thoughts, at least . Aside from that, I like the changes a lot!
LebensnebeL

[Ze_PilOt]

Zep if you think this change is bad, please provide a replay!
(I always dreamed of saying this sentence )

I don't think it's bad (only pretty random), but it can be made better for faction diversity.

Btw could we get a private section of the forum with only the balance team please?

No. The goal of having a public discussion about changes is still prevalent.

[RoundTabler]

About the Sera t2 bomber : if the bombs are dropped and miss, it's not a problem, it's possible (and easy) to dodge bombs. What is the Sera bomber problem is the fact that it doesn't drop at all sometimes. The Janus is much more reliable. I noticed that they will both sometimes not shoot when there is a change in elevation (hill, mountain) but I'd rather not change their elevation, or else flak will never hit them.

You are right - the janus are more reliable, but when 20+ bombers miss in the same place every time (in front of their target, same place every time), I think we have a problem. It now takes two passes too deal any damage.

[pip]

About the Sera t2 bomber : if the bombs are dropped and miss, it's not a problem, it's possible (and easy) to dodge bombs. What is the Sera bomber problem is the fact that it doesn't drop at all sometimes. The Janus is much more reliable. I noticed that they will both sometimes not shoot when there is a change in elevation (hill, mountain) but I'd rather not change their elevation, or else flak will never hit them.

You are right - the janus are more reliable, but when 20+ bombers miss in the same place every time (in front of their target, same place every time), I think we have a problem. It now takes two passes too deal any damage.

Now that the AOE of Janus has been increased, it will normally damage the unit / structure it was shooting at, instead of doing no damage at all (except if the unit is moving). If you find a way to completely fix the bug, you are welcome to submit it, I could not find any. The Sera bomber doing full damage at once in a large AOE, it should not be an issue. In any case, it's better to drop than to not drop at all. It gives you nothing to not drop, if you drop not exactly on your target, you can still damage something.

As for the mobile shield, if we take static shield as a reference, then aeon mobile shield should be significantly smaller, like 14 radius, and UEF bigger (17 radius).
Static ones are like that : UEF = 26 radius and less hp and high upkeep / Aeon one = 20 radius and more HP and lower upkeep because you need more shields to cover your base. Applying this to the mobile shields is not inappropriate, I guess, even though it favors smaller radius because they have less chance to overlap. But then, you do need more shield to protect more units, so in the end 2 shields cost more energy.

It's fine by me if that's the logic Zep wants to follow, it makes sense. What doesn't make sense is : more hp, much less energy for same radius. If radius difference is copied from static shields, why not.

[IceDreamer]

Change radius to 15/17 is a VERY good idea, run with it.

[lebensnebel]

Yeah, I like the idea of different sized mobile shields aswell! That would also make stacking of many shields (when power is no issue in lategame) more difficult, which might happen in navy lategame otherwise.

Another point is, that not only the upkeep, but also the mass and energy cost is significantly lower (480 vs 600 mass, 5760 vs 6000 energy t2 shields) for both t2 and t3 stationary shields. Currently, the asylum is a bit more expensive (144 vs 120 mass), even though it's only slightly better.
But I would understand if that would be too many changes at once .

Cheers

edit: I just wanted to add, that also the aeon ACU shield has more hp than it's UEF counterpart, as does the SCU, so this would fit really well in the faction theme.
I guess only harbinger vs titan doesn't match here, but harbinger was changed a lot...

[Ithilis_Quo]

How about these changes:
Aeon mobile shield : 75 energy / 3500 HP, slightly smaller radius (15 instead of 16)
UEF mobile shield : 110 energy / 3800 HP , slightly bigger radius (17 instead of 16)

Im not sure, imho Aeon need better shield like need UEF, look how it was before,
http://supcom.wikia.com/wiki/Aeon_T2_Mobile_Shield_Generator
vs
http://supcom.wikia.com/wiki/UEF_T2_Mob ... _Generator
5000 vs 4000 shield aeon was 20% stronger shield for 25%energy price cost

I think that Aeon would has softly less radius but stronger shield, and UEF biger radius and weaker shield, similar like in static shield only cheaper weaker and mobile.

Obsidian
When we take the back muzzle charge delay that we bring back him owerfire problem what has before. I love him sound what he make, its like tank orgasm but owerfiring obsidian is half that good like its whiteout this sound. What try to faster muzzle velocity speed +100% to prevent owerfiring ? (obsidian with 8 energy consume cost 390mass, with owerfiring units its not so good for that price)